Jesus and Isaac – Joseph Caiphas A.A.M. van der Hoeven, www.JesusKing.info, June 15, 2011. erratum June 21, 2016 1. Sacrifice of the only begotten Son .................................................................................................. 2 1.1. the Christ – the Son of Man ..................................................................................................... 2 1.2. Jesus, the Son of Man .............................................................................................................. 3 a) The Son of man is a priest receiving the same gifts as the saints who are priests .............. 3 b) “given glory” – a high priest’s installation in heaven ........................................................ 5 c) “one like a son of man” – title of high priest’s son-successor-second priest...................... 6 d) The Son of Man is Prince of princes becoming King of kings and Lord of lords............ 10 1.3. Jesus: “Behold the Man”........................................................................................................ 11 The day ................................................................................................................................. 11 The place ............................................................................................................................... 11 The robe ................................................................................................................................ 13 Of the high priest .......................................................................................................... 13 Of succession ................................................................................................................ 13 The words ............................................................................................................................. 14 Jesus speaks .......................................................................................................................... 14 Similar high priest-kings ....................................................................................................... 16 A) The Hasmonean high priest-kings ................................................................................... 16 B) “Behold the man whose name is the Branch”.................................................................. 16 C) “a Son of Man” ................................................................................................................ 17 1.4. The Eucharist, the high priest’s cake-offering ....................................................................... 18 Responsibility of the second priest ....................................................................................... 18 Anointed to succeed him....................................................................................................... 19 Remembrance and meaning: Isaac and forgiveness of sins .................................................. 21 The Eucharist ........................................................................................................................ 21 1.5. An anointed one is cut off ...................................................................................................... 23 e) Jesus is Daniel’s “Son of Man” and “anointed one” who is cut off ............................... 24 2. Joseph of Egypt ............................................................................................................................ 26 3. Abraham and Isaac....................................................................................................................... 26 4. Essene .......................................................................................................................................... 27 5. Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 29 Table 1. Daniel’s “saints” are priests ................................................................................................................. 30 Table 2. The Son of Man is a priest like the saints ............................................................................................ 30 Table 3. King’s Court ........................................................................................................................................ 31 Table 4. Responsibilities of the Second Priests ................................................................................................. 33 Table 5. Chronology of Second Priests.............................................................................................................. 34 Table 6. Temple hierarchy ................................................................................................................................. 40 Table 7. The Prince of princes and the Son of Man are second priest ............................................................... 10 Fig. 1. A sketch of the sanctuary of the temple................................................................................................. 44 Fig. 2. Jerusalem in the days of Jesus ............................................................................................................... 45 Fig. 3. Antonia and the Watch Gate.................................................................................................................. 46 Erratum .............................................................................................................................................................. 46 1. Sacrifice of the only begotten Son 1.1. the Christ – the Son of Man Before and after Jesus had been anointed in Bethany and when He stood trial, when it was crucial whether Jesus was or wasn’t the Christ (= “the anointed” Ps 2,21, the ever-reigning king and high priest promised in Scripture, cf. Ps 110,4 Ps 2), Jesus’ virgin mother and also Jesus Himself could have declared that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and that his legal father was Joseph, son of Jacob, from the royal family of David and “Son of David”2. To be a Bethlehem-born descendant of king David, was the scriptural condition for anyone who had the pretension to be the Christ (Micah 5,2 Isa 9,6-7 Jer 23,5 Mt 22,42). Yet, Jesus and Mary didn't declare Jesus met this condition, although no one knew He was of Bethlehem – one thought He was of Nazareth because He had been exposed, and secretly adopted by Nazareth’s carpenter.3 And also the high priest Caiphas, who asked Jesus the crucial question: “Are you the Christ”, doesn't ask or say anything about Jesus’ birthplace or about his father4. The only sound explanation for the extraordinary behaviour of these three people is that Mary and Jesus knew that did not have to start about this topic in front of the high priest, and the high priest did not have to ask anyone about this, because the high priest Joseph Caiphas knew Jesus’ real birthplace and who was Jesus’ real legal father: it was he. The name Caiphas was a name-title,5 and no source mentions the first name or father's name of this Caiphas or his descent, except the historian Flavius Josephus in the first century, who states that the name of the high priest Caiphas was Joseph (Jewish Antiquities 18,2,2(35)). Although Mary’s husband Joseph, son of Jacob and “son of David”, was not a descendant of the high priest Aaron but of king David, he nevertheless can have been the person who in 18 CE was appointed high priest by the Roman procurator of Judea, Valerius Gratus, for it was written in Scripture that “David’s sons were priests” (‘cohen’)6. And also the prophecised so-called “Branch” who would sit on the throne of the high priest Joshua, would be a descendant of David.7 If Joseph, Mary’s husband, was Caiphas, then the high priest Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiphas, was Mary’s father. This is not impossible, for Mary’s blood relative (‘sungenēs’) Elisabeth was “of the daughters of Aaron”8, so she was of priestly descent. Both Mary and Jesus, ánd Joseph, knew that eventually, at the trial, it would be Joseph Caiphas’ word against that of Jesus. So they didn’t have to start about this to anybody else: Joseph Caiphas would decide. 63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. 64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. 66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. (Matt 26,63-66 AV) 1 Bethany: Mark 14,3; trial: Matt 26,63-66; All bible citations are taken from the Revised Standard Version, unless otherwise noted. 2 Matt 1,1-18.20.25 2,1 3 See my article Jesus and Moses – Mary Magdalene, www.JesusKing.info. 4 Mark 14,61 5 See my article Paul’s Cephas is Caiphas – Author of 1Peter and Hebrews, www.JesusKing.info. 6 2Sa 8,18 (RSV) 7 Zec 6,11-13 3,1-5.8 Jer 33,15-18 8 NA27 = NESTLE-ALAND, Novum Testamentum Graece, 27. Auflage, 8. Druck, Stuttgart 2001) Luke 1,5.36 2 When Jesus confirms that He is the Christ, by using the words: “I am”/“You have said so” 9, Caiphas in fact doesn't use any proof or argument, but rents his clothes, accuses Jesus of blasphemy and claims no further witnesses are needed. Yet, Jesus, now convicted, would indicate his father the next morning. 1.2. Jesus, the Son of Man Jesus had called Himself “the Son of Man” (Greek: ‘ho uios tou antrōpou’ = the son of the man) during his public ministry and at the trial.10 With this title He referred to the “Son of Man” (Aramaic: ‘bar enash’), seen by the prophet Daniel in his vision (Dan 7,13). It will be shown that Daniel’s “Son of Man” was a priest with the hierarchical position of second priest and successor of the high priest, originally occupied by the (chosen) son of the high priest. The scriptural Sof of Man appears in Daniel’s vision: I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. (Dan 7,13-14) a) The Son of man is a priest receiving the same gifts as the saints who are priests In Daniel’s prophecies, in Aramaic and Hebrew, he speaks about “the saints (Aramaic: ‘qadiysh’ ) of the Most High” and of the corresponding equivalent “holy one” (Hebrew: ‘qadowsh’) several times (Dan 7,22,25 8,13). He gives three parallel descriptions in which they are attacked by animals with horns (representing evil kings), which prevailed against the saints11 (see table 1, a+b+c). In the first situation the saints are involved when the horn magnified itself, even up to the Prince of the host; and the continual burnt offering was taken away from him, and the place of his sanctuary was overthrown. And the host was given over to it together with the continual burnt offering through transgression; and truth was cast down to the ground, and the horn acted and prospered. Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to the one that spoke, "For how long is the vision concerning the continual burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled under foot?" And he said to him, "For two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state." (Dan 8,11-14) The people in this vision – the Prince of the host and the holy ones – were priests: • The word “host” (‘tsabat’) here means “service”,12 i.e., the liturgical service in the temple, for it is a service belonging to the “sanctuary” and it is constituted by the “continual (= daily) burnt offering”. As this offering was taken away from “the Prince of the host” and as the sanctuary is “his”, this indicates that the Prince was either the high priest or his sonsuccessor, who was called “the second priest” or “the officer (‘paqiyd’ = deputy) of the high 9 “I am” (Mark 14,62; Matt 26,62-66) e.g. Matt 8,20 9,6 10,23 11,19 12,8.32.40 13,37.41 16,13.27 etc. NA27 ; “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” (Matt 16,13 AV) 11 Dan 7,21.25 8,11-14 12 Strong’s 06635 c 10 3 priest”13 and who presided over the daily communal sacrificial liturgy and especially over the daily high priestly cake-offering (see below, 1.4). • Also the first and second “holy one” speaking in Daniel’s prophecy probably were priests, for when this prophecy was actualized in the time of the Maccabeans, it were the “sanctuary” and the “holy people”14 – also translated with “the priests”15 – who got defiled (= ritually polluted) and “the offerings and sacrifice” which got forbidden16. • In a parallel of this prophecy17 Daniel mentions a king destroying “the people of the saints” and standing up against “the Prince of princes”. This person is the second priest, for in Num 3,32 the prototype of the second priest, viz. Eleazar, son of Aaron, is called the “Prince of princes”. No other person in Scripture is called like this. • In still another parallel Daniel speaks of “an anointed one” – so possibly a high priest or a second priest (see below 1.4. “Anointed to succeed him” Lev 6,22) – who shall be “cut off”, and of the destruction of “the city and the sanctuary” and the ceasing of “sacrifice and offering”18. • A last parallel describes “the prince of the covenant” and its being “swept away and broken”, the profanation of “the temple and fortress” and the taking away of the “continual burnt offering” and the setting up of “the abomination”19. Because of this context “the prince of the covenant” is probably the prince of “the covenant of the priesthood, and of the Levites” which God gave to the second priest Phinehas, the chosen son and successor of the high priest Eleazar.20 All these parallels show that “the Prince of princes”, and “the Prince of the host”, and “the prince of the covenant”, probably all represent the second priest. 21 Besides the descriptions of destruction, Daniel also describes the turning of the tide in several parallels. He says the “saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever” and in a parallel he says that, when the Ancient of Days came, “the time came when the saints received the kingdom”22. In another parallel Daniel also says that “the court shall sit in judgment” and then the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High (Dan 7,27). So, the priests would receive “the kingdom”: the high priest would be king too. And they also would receive “dominion”, which is here the Aramaic ‘sholtan’, in the Greek Septuagint translated as ‘exousia’. It probably was the dominion to execute judgement, for in Dan 7,22 the priests receive ‘diyn’ = judgement, beside the kingdom: 13 2Ki 25,18 Jer 52,24 2Ch 24,11 (Strong’s 06496) 1769 Oxford Apocrypha 15 1947 Revised Oxford Apocrypha 16 [44] And the king sent letters by messengers to Jerusalem and the cities of Judah; he directed them to follow customs strange to the land, [45] to forbid burnt offerings and sacrifices and drink offerings in the sanctuary, to profane sabbaths and feasts, [46] to defile the sanctuary and the priests (1Macc 1,44-46) www.pseudepigrapha.com/apocrypha_ot/1macc.htm 17 Dan 8,21-25 18 Dan 9,26-27 19 Dan 11,22.31-32 20 Neh 13,29 Num 25,11-13 Mal 2,7-8; The priest Phinehas was the chosen son of the high priest Eleazar, son of Aaron, who would succeed his father Eleazar in the high priesthood (Jos 22,13 1Ch 6,4). 21 These propheciesmay have been fulfilled pre-liminarly, as a pre-figuration, when the high priest Onias III “was slain without cause” in ± 172 BCE, and three and a half years later, in ± 169 BCE, the temple was plundered and the daily offering was stopped, and in 167 “the abomination of desolation” was set “upon the altar (2Macc 4,24.36 (AV); 1Macc 1,54) 22 Dan 7,18.22 14 4 and judgment was given for the saints of the Most High, and the time came when the saints received the kingdom. (Dan 7,22). Now the following is said about the Son of Man: I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion (‘sholtan’) and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. (Dan 7,13-14) The dominion (‘sholtan’/‘exousia’) given to the saints ánd to the Son of Man in Daniel’s vision was the power to execute judgement indeed, for Jesus says that the Father […] has given him [the Son] authority (‘exousia’) to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man. (John 5,27) A striking detail is now that in Jesus’ days it was the second priest (e.g. Annas during the high priesthood of Caiphas: Acts 4,6),23 who executed judgement as the president of the Great Sanhedrin when it functioned as the court of justice.24 So, with the title “Son of Man”, both Daniel and Jesus may have referred to the second priesthood, which originally was the office of the high priest’s son and successor (see below at 1.2.c). Anyway, it is now important to note that Daniel also says in one of his parallels that one like a Son of Man will receive the same gifts the saints receive, plus “the glory” (Aramaic: rqy = ‘ykar’ = value, wealth; costliness, dignity: honour, precious things, price25), and this at the same time, viz. when “the Ancient of Days took his seat” and “the court sat in judgement” the Son of Man was given “dominion (‘sholtan’) and glory and kingdom”26 (see table 2). The conclusion is that the Son of Man was one of the “saints” of the Most High and thus one of the priests who received dominion and kingdom. b) “given glory” – a high priest’s installation in heaven The “glory”, only given to the Son of Man and not to the other priests, may represent the high priesthood (see table 2). That the “glory” represents the installation, the investiture, in the high priesthood indeed, is probable, for the “glory” – in Da 7,14 LXX it is the Greek ‘timē’ – is a synonym of the splendid official purple robe and other glorious vestments worn only by the high priest: • the high priest Aaron was dressed with “a robe of glory” which with the “ephod”, the “breastplate” and “crown” and “mitre” constituted “perfect glory”27. 23 The Hebraist John Lightfoot (1602-1675) in his Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud an Hebraica already stated: “It is easy distinguishing this captain of the mountain of the Temple from the ruler of the Temple or the sagan. The former presided only over the guards; the latter over the whole service of the Temple. And so we have them distinguished, Acts 4:1: there is the captain of the Temple, and Annas, who was the sagan” (commentary on Luke 22,4). The same contention is in Easton’s revised Bible Dictionary at “Caiaphas”: “Annas .. probably the vicar or deputy (Heb. Sagan) of Caiaphas”. The word sagan Ngs (S. Safrai a.o. eds., The Jewish People in the First Century (Assen/Amsterdam, 1976), p. 875) is used for the “second priest” (2Ki 25,18 Jer 52,24). 24 For the two presidents for the two functions of the Great Sanhedrin (court of justice and court of civil affairs), see chapter three plus appendix “The Two Councils in the Acts” of my article Paul’s Cephas is Caiphas – Author of 1Peter and Hebrews, www.JesusKing.info. 25 Strong’s 3367+3366 26 Dan 8,9-14 27 Sir 45,7-14 5 • • • also Simon, the high priest and son of Onias, put on “the robe of honour” (“the glorious robe” RAPC) and “was clothed with the perfection of glory”; clothed like this “he made the court of the sanctuary glorious (‘doxa’)”28. that a priest’s or a king’s clothing is his “glory” is also shown by Salomon, who “in all his glory (‘doxa’) was not clothed like one of these” lilies of the field29. And as the high priest’s glory was called the “perfect glory”, it apparently was more splendid than the king’s glory, and represented a higher dignity. in the epistle to the Hebrews the “high priest” Jesus (Heb 5,5) is seen with both “glory” (‘doxa’) and “honour” (‘timē’)30 we see Jesus … crowned with glory and honor (‘timē’) and its author says that a high priest does not take the honor (‘timēn’) upon himself, but he is called by God, just as Aaron was. So also Christ did not exalt himself (‘edoxasen’) to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, "Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee"; (Heb 5,4-5 NA27) So, when Daniel’s Son of Man was given “glory/honor” (‘timē’), beside the kingdom, he received the high priesthood.31 And according to the verse cited above, Heb 5,5, to be called a Son of God implied to be appointed high priest. When Jesus confirmed that He was the Christ, the Son of God, before Caiphas, this may have been interpreted as that Jesus confirmed that He was the high priest. And to make oneself high priest was blasphemy, as is shown in the case of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, who tried to make themselves priests, and who were punished by God with immediate death (Num 16,10.28-33). Caiphas immediately rent his cloths, which is a sign of personal grief, and said that Jesus’ confirmation meant blasphemy and implied that He was guilty of death, which was confirmed by the other high priests of the Council of the Temple (Matt 26,63-66).32 c) “one like a son of man” – title of high priest’s son-successor-second priest It is also important to note that the person who receives the high priestly installation in the vision of Daniel, is not “the Son of Man”, but someone “like a son of man” (Dan 7,13). This means that there had been more ‘sons of man’ before Daniel saw one in his vision. The verse “and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man” also means that one could conclude from his appearance that he looked like a son of man: a son of man had a distinctive appearance. Daniel’s Son of Man was not only distinct from the animal that was killed in the vision, but also from the “thousand of thousands” angels who served the Ancient of Days and the “ten thousand times ten thousand” – probably people from all nations –, who stood before him33. This means that “son of man” was not a synonym of ‘any human being’ – otherwise Daniel could have said ‘there came a 28 Sir 50,11 1947 Revised Oxford Apocrypha Matt 6,29 BBE NA27 (Strong’s 1391) 30 Heb 2,7.9 NA27 (Strong’s 1391 and 5092) 31 This prophecy of the combination of both “dominion and glory (= high priesthood) and kingdom” for Daniel’s Son of Man was fulfilled for the first time in the high priest-kingship of the Hasmonean dynasty. The Son of Man of Daniel, before his installation, is thus like a second priest and crown prince. 32 For the Council of the Temple, see my article Paul’s Cephas is Caiphas – Author of 1Peter and Hebrews, chapter 3, www.JesusKing.info. 33 Dan 7,10; in Revelation the angels before the throne number “thousands of thousands”, and the people from the tribes of Israel number “hundred and forty-four thousand” (Rev 5,11 7,4). 29 6 son of man’ –, but a title for some specific person or position. A detailed study of the high priesthood and kingdom in the Old Testament shows that at some time the high priest’s son who would succeed his father, may have been called ‘the son of man’, just as the king’s son who would succeed his father, was called ‘the son of the king’: The king’s court In the kingdoms of Israel and Judah the son of the king that had been chosen from all the king’s sons to be his successor, probably was titled the ‘ben hammelech”, meaning ‘the son of the king’, to distinguish him from his brothers. An example is Joash, who was the son and viceroy of king Ahab of Israel and was called the ‘ben hammelech’34 (see table 3). Another example is another Joash, also called ‘ben hammelech’, who was a son of king Ahaziah of Judah and who eventually succeeded his father35. Originally, when the chosen son, the crown prince, was still a child, another person than this “son of the king” had to occupy the hierarchical position of the king’s closest assistant and plenipotentionary, a position titled ‘the second to the king’ (‘mishneh (yad) hammelech’). For example, in the time of king Ahaz, his young son Maaseiah was the ‘ben hammelech’, but Elkanah was ‘the second to the king’ (“the next in authority to the king” RSV)36. It is noteworthy that the expression ‘the second to the king’ is translated in the Septuagint with ‘diadochos’, meaning ‘successor, stand-in, heir’37, which means that in principle the successor had this position. Now it’s not illogical to suppose that when the ‘son of the king’ became an adult he received the office of ‘second to the king’ himself. Then he had both titles, as equivalents. Later in history, when the Jewish kings were appointed by the Egytians or Persians and were not necessarily one of the last king’s natural sons any longer, the person who had received the hierarchical position of the king’s plenipotentionary was still called the ‘ben hammelek’, even if he was not one of the king’s sons. An example is Jerachmeel, who is called the 'ben hammelek' but is not a son of king Joiakim, who was appointed by the Egyptians and later deported to Babylon38. Also in the time of king Joiakin, appointed by the Persians, there was a ‘ben hammelek’, called Malchiah, who was not one of the king’s sons39. These Jerachmeel and Malchiah were the king’s personal assistant and plenipotentionary, for they were authorized to inflict the death penalty, which authority was the king’s40. Other offices beside ‘the son of the king’ that can be found at the king’s court are: the secretary, the captain of the palace, and the captain of the army (see table 3). The temple hierarchy A similar development in hierarchy may have taken place in the high priesthood. In the hierarchy of the temple in the time of the kings the priest that was called “the second priest”41, was the plenipotentionary and personal assistant of the high priest. He was responsible for the Court of the Priests and the Court of the Israelites in the temple (see fig. 1), where the daily liturgy took place with its sacrifices, especially the daily high priestly cake-offering, and where the priestly and 34 1Ki 22:26 // 2 Ch 18,25 2Ki 11,2-4.12 36 In 2Ch 28,7 the three persons closest to the king are murdered together: “And Zichri, a mighty man of Ephraim, slew Maaseiah the king’s son and Azrikam the commander of the palace and Elkanah the next in authority to the king.” 37 G. Bartelink, Grieks-Nederlands woordenboek (Utrecht 1958) 65 38 2Ch 36,6-7 39 Jer 38,6 40 Jerachmeel was sent by the king to arrest Jeremiah and Baruch (Jer 36,26). In “the cistern of Malchiah” was only mire and Jeremiah was left in there to die (Jer 38,6). The arrested prophet Michah was sent to Joash, the ‘ben hammelech’, probably to get put to death like had happened to other ‘false’ prophets (1Ki 22,26). The king had authority to put someone to death: Saul 1Sa 14,44, David 2Sa 21,6-9, Solomon 1Ki 2,32, Ahab 1Ki 21,7-9, Hizkiah Jer 26,19, Joiakim Jer 26,21-23, Hyrcanus II: Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 14,9,3(167). 41 e.g. Zephaniah, son of Maaseiah, was second priest to the high priest Seraiah (2Ki 25,18 Jer 52,24). 35 7 levitical liturgical clothes were kept42 (see tables 4, 5, and 6). He was in charge of the offering priests and the levite singers who musically accompanied the offerings in the Court of the Priests.43 The Old Testament prototype of the “second priest” is Eleazar, son and successor of his father Aaron. When Aaron was still the high priest, Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest was to be chief over the leaders (Darby-translation: “the prince of princes”, Hebrew: y)y#n )y#n = nasi-nasii ) of the Levites, and to have oversight of those who had charge of the sanctuary (Num 3,32) and he was in charge of the oil for the light, the fragrant incense, the continual cereal offering, and the anointing oil, with the oversight of all the tabernacle and all that is in it, of the sanctuary and its vessels. (Num 4,16) Note that he is already called “the priest” in Josh 21,1, i.e., while his father is still alive and the official high priest (see table 4 at 1, and table 5 and 6). Another famous second priest was Phinehas, son of Eleazar,44 who is called ‘keeper of the vestments’ in the Talmud.45 The undefined “three keepers of the threshold”, mentioned next to the second priest – in that time also called “the keeper of the wardrobe” (2Ki 25,18 Jer 52,24 2Ki 22,14) –, probably were three other highly ranked temple priests, cf. 2Ki 12,9 (see table 8): the first may have been (1) the secretary and treasurer, responsible for the inner courts of the temple where the money was collected in boxes and other gifts (oil, wine, wood) were kept in special storerooms and where also bible manuscripts were kept. He was in charge of the levite treasurers. The second may have been (2) the captain of the temple guard responsible for the order in all the temple courts including the outer court, where also Gentiles were allowed. He was in charge of the levite temple guards. And the third may have been (3) the captain of the fortress and the city, responsible for the levites in service outside the temple walls who collected the temple taxes, brought from all over the land, to be kept in Jerusalem, and who also were “judges” (probably executors).46 These three distinct precincts (inner courts – outer court – city, see fig. 2) were all on a different level and separated from each other by three concentric walls or “thresholds”, and hence the name “keepers of the treshold” for the three highly ranked priests47. This hierarchical structure is analogous to the hierarchical structure that can be found at the king’s court. 42 In Herod’s temple there was a wardrobe for the priests’ clothes in the two most inner courts, the priests’ court and the Court of the Israelites, and north of the Nicanor Gate (H.G. Koekkoek, De Geheimen Van De Offers, 120-121). It was called “the Chamber of Phinehas, the Keeper of the Vestments”, Phinehas being one of the famous second priests; on the opposite side there was the Chamber of Makers of Baked Cakes (S. Safrai a.o., The Jewish People in the First Century 868). These two matters, the vestments and the cakes, were both liturgical matters and thus the responsibility of the second priest. Shallum, the “keeper of the wardrobe” (2Ki 22,14) was a priest and, analogous to Phinehas, most probably the second priest in the time of the high priest Hilkiah. 43 2Ch 5,12-13 29,28 44 Num 25,1-13 45 S. Safrai, The Jewish People 868 46 1Ch 26,29-32 47 King David divided the Levites into four groups, and they were again classified as such by the high priest Jeshua (1Ch 23,3-5 25,1-26,32 9,14-34 Ezr 2,1,2.40-58 Ne 7,1-2 ): 1) the “singers” in the Court of the Priests 1Ch 9,14-17.31-33 16,4-6 6,31-47 16,39-41 23,1-32 2Ch 8,14 35,15 Ne 12,1.8-9.24-25.27-29 2) the treasurers in the Court of the Women, also simply called “the Levites” Ne 13,13 12,47 1Ch 26,24 2Ch 24,11-14 34,8-9 31,12-13 3) the guards of the whole temple, also called “the gatekeepers”, 1Ch 9,17-34 16,37.38 26,1-19 2Ch 35,15 Ezr 3,10 Ne 12,24.25 4) the “officers and judges” for “the outside duties”, probably as executors (cf. Ex 23,25-29) 1Ch 26,29-32 Ne 11,16 2Ch 24,5-6 34,9 10,37.38 John 1,19 cf. Ex 23,25-29 8 Originally one of the sons of the high priest was chosen to become his successor (see table 5). It is possible that in the time of the kings, this chosen son was called ‘the son of (the) man’ in analogy to ‘the son of the king’: both the king and the high priest were called a “Son of God”, but both were (only) human: “a man”48. So the title ‘the son of (the) man’ for the succeeding son of the high priest, would stress that the high priest was only human, but still the one representing all mankind before God. He represented man. Maybe it is not coincidental that Ezechiel, called “son of man” (Hebrew: ‘ben adam’) by God, was a priest49. When the successor, ‘the son of man’, was an adult, he himself probably held the hierarchical position of “second priest”, closest to the high priest: in the Septuagint “the second priest” is translated with ‘uion tēs deuterōseōs’ = son of the second … , so, designating a ‘son’ (‘uios’) (2Ki 25,18 Jer 52,24 LXX) . But in the time of the Romans, Herod and his successors just disposed of, and appointed, high priests arbitrarily almost every year, and the high priest thus was not necessarily succeeded by one of his sons any longer. Thus, the hierarchical position of the second priest became very important and even more important than the position of the high priest himself, for the second priest could stay in his position for many consecutive years, safeguarding the continuity of the daily temple liturgy, also when the high priest had been dismissed50. Of the second priests Jonathan, Ananias, and Jesus ben Gamala, is explicitly said by Josephus that they were “the biggest in reputation and influence” (see table 5, endnotes). The second priest was called “high priest”, already in the time of Ezra and Nehemia, under the rule The four corresponding supervising priests, appointed by the priest Jehoiada, with their subordinate priests who were classified as such by the high priest Jeshua and again appointed over the sanctuary by Simon the Maccabean, probably were (cf. 2Ki 11,18 2Ch 23,18 Ezr 2,36-40 Ne 13,13 1Macc 14,41-42) 1) the second priest or ‘paqiyd’/‘sagan’= vicar, deputy 2Ch 24,11 2Ki 25,18 (“sons of Jedaiah”; “over their works (= the ‘public work’ = ‘laos’ + ‘ergos’ = liturgy (Strong’s 3011)”) 2) the secretary-treasurer Jer 36,10.26 Ne 13,13 (“sons of Immer”; “over the [gifts of] the country”) 3) the captain of (the mountain of) the temple Jer 20,1-2 Acts 4,1 5,24.26 (“sons of Pashur”; “over the armour”) 4) the captain of the city, the ‘sar iyr’/‘sar habirah’/‘iysh habirah’, e.g. the priest Joezer, a pupil of Shammai, who held a post in the Temple 2Ki 23,8 2Ch 34,8 Jer 35,4 Ne 7,2 Mishnah Orlah 2,12 (“sons of Harim”; “over the fortresses”). The Hebraist John Lightfoot (1602-1675) in his “Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud an Hebraica” already stated: “It is easy distinguishing this captain of the mountain of the Temple from the ruler of the Temple or the sagan. The former presided only over the guards; the latter over the whole service of the Temple. And so we have them distinguished, Acts 4:1: there is the captain of the Temple, and Annas, who was the sagan” (commentary on Luke 22,4). The “captain of the temple” arrested the apostles, and they were brought before “Annas” (Acts 4,1-6). The Talmud reads: “We have learned in a Boraitha: Abba Saul said: "There were sycamore-trees in Jericho which the priests forcibly appropriated for their own use, in consequence of which the owners consecrated them for the use of the Temple. "Concerning such outrages and such priests, Abba Saul ben Batnith in the name of Abba Joseph ben Hanin said: "Woe is me on account of the house of Baithos, woe is me on account of their rods! Woe is me through the house of Hanin and through their calumnies! Woe is me through the house of Kathros and through their pens! Woe is me on account of the house of Ishmael ben Piakhi and of their fists! for they were all highpriests, their sons were the treasurers, their sons-in-law were the chamberlains, and their servants would beat us with rods." ” (Talmud, Pesachim 4, www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Talmud/pesachim4.html) This citation may refer to the four groups: the chamberlains (second priest-keeper of the wardrobe) with their calumnies, the treasurers with their pens, the captains of the temple with their fists, and the servants for the outer duties with their rods. More examples and arguments are in Dutch in my unpublished study and may get published in another article. 48 king as ‘son of God’: Ps 2,6-7; high priest as ‘son of God’: Heb 5,4-5; a “man”: see below: “the Branch” (Jer 33,1518). 49 Eze 1,3 2,1 etc.; Ezechiel did not become high priest, probably because the Jewish people lived in Babylon, exiled from Judah. 50 See table 4 and its end notes. 9 of the Persians (for example Eliasib)51. In the time of the Romans he was even called “the high priest”52. An example is “Annas the high priest” (Acts 4,6), who after he had been dismissed as high priest, became the second priest (also called the ‘Sagan’ = deputy) while some of his sons, one after another, were the official high priest. His son-in-law, the official high priest Caiphas, and Annas himself are called “the high priests” by Luke53. Apparently, the title ‘the son of man’ was not used any longer in a time when not a high priest’s son but an arbitrary priest was appointed high priest by foreign rulers, and the second priest was more important and influential: he was simply called “the high priest” himself, for the title ‘Son of Man’ would make him seem less influential than the arbitrary high priest.54 These hierarchical arguments indicate that “Son of (the) man” may have been a title of the second priest. But even without these arguments, the fact that the Son of Man seen by Daniel was a priest and received the high priesthood, on its own behalf already showed that Daniel’s “one like a Son of Man” was probably ‘one like a second priest’. d) The Son of Man is Prince of princes becoming King of kings and Lord of lords This is confirmed by the following parallels (see table 7): Dan 8,21-25 Num 3,32 Rev 19,11-21 Dan 7,13-14 Mt 9,6 16,13 Prince of princes slays enemies without hand (second priest Eleazar) ^ ^ ^ ^ Son of Man slays enemies the Word of God with sword = Jesus out of his mouth <<<<<< Jesus King of kings and Lord of lords becomes high priest-king Table 7. The Prince of princes and the Son of Man are second priest Daniel’s “Prince of princes” is the title of Eleazar, the prototype of the second priest (see 1.2.a, and table 4). And just as the “Prince of Princes” would slay his enemies “without hand” (Dan 8,25), also Jesus, the “Word of God” and the “King of kings and Lord of lords”, will slay his enemies with the sword “out of his mouth” (Re 19,11-21). Thus the Prince of princes probably represents 51 See table 4 and its end notes; Eliashib son of Joiakim, was called “high priest” and “the priest” (Neh 3,1 13,4), when Joiakim was the real high priest (Neh 12,10). In the times of the Maccabeans Alkimus and Judas were called “high priest” and probably were only second priest (2Macc 14,3 Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 12,10,6(416)). Maybe already in the case of Azariah(3), possibly the second priest in the time of the kings Uzziah and Jotham of Judah, this second priest was called “the (high) priest” (2Ch 26,17.20) (“high” = ‘rosh’ = head). 52 The following priests were called “the high priest” while being the second priest: Annas (Acts 3,11-12 4,5-7.14 5,1728 6,8.12 7,1 9,1-2), Jonathan (Josephus, Jewish War 2,12,5(240); J.Ant., 20,8,5(162)), Ananias (Jos., J.War 2,12,6(243)) and Ananus (Jos., J.War 2,20,3(563) 4,3,7(151)), (“the high priests Ananus and Jesus” (Jos., J.War 4,3,9(160)). 53 Luke 3,2 54 The Talmudic expression “sons of the high priests” (M. Ketuboth 13,1-2 T. Ohiloth 17,8) probably indicates the priests who belonged to the temple organisation, were supervised by a council of high priests, and were the daily temple officers, in contrast to the ordinary priests, who lived all over the land and had their own occupation and only served in the temple for one week, when it was their division’s turn to minister in the temple liturgy (see my article The Eleven – Jesus appeared risen to the Officers of the Temple Prison, www.JesusKing.info). 10 Jesus. But also Daniel’s Son of Man represents Jesus (Jesus called himself “the Son of Man”). Thus Daniel’s Son of Man (becoming the high priest-king) is a parallel of the Prince of princes (becoming King of kings and Lord of lords). Now the circle of parallels is complete, which proves both Daniel’s Prince of princes ánd his Son of Man ánd Jesus were second priest-successor. And thus, as successor of Caiphas, Jesus may also have been his Son. 1.3. Jesus: “Behold the Man” According to Scripture the promised Messiah (Hebrew for ‘anointed one’ = Christ) would be both a king and a (high) priest on Zion (= Jerusalem), as appears from e.g. the following psalms: 1 ¶ Why do the nations conspire, and the peoples plot in vain? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and his anointed, saying, 3 "Let us burst their bonds asunder, and cast their cords from us." 4 He who sits in the heavens laughs; the LORD has them in derision. 5 Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, 6 "I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill." 7 ¶ I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my son, today I have begotten you. 8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. 9 You shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel." 10 ¶ Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. 11 Serve the LORD with fear, with trembling 12 kiss his feet, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way; for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him. (Ps 2) 1 ¶ A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my lord: "Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool." 2 The LORD sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter. Rule in the midst of your foes! 3 Your people will offer themselves freely on the day you lead your host upon the holy mountains. From the womb of the morning like dew your youth will come to you. 4 The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, "You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." 5 ¶ The Lord is at your right hand; he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath. 6 He will execute judgment among the nations, filling them with corpses; he will shatter chiefs over the wide earth. 7 He will drink from the brook by the way; therefore he will lift up his head. (Ps 110) After Jesus’ trial at Caiphas’ at night, He was led before Pilate and the assembled people in the temple the next morning. On this occasion He not only resembled, but also behaved as, and was installed as, high priest-king: The day The day after the trial of Jesus at Caiphas’ it was the day of “the preparation of the passover”55, the preparation of one of the three main liturgical feasts of the Jews. The place Jesus was brought to Pilate in the temple fortress called Antonia, of which one of the parts was the praetorium then56, the barracks of the city guard of the Romans (see fig. 3).57 In this fortress, at the 55 John 19,14 As the procurator Florus took up his quarters in Herod’s palace in 64/65 CE, and as this was well after the years 3033 CE of Jesus and Pilate, the procurator Pilate may still have had his quarters and tribunal in Antonia. See for 56 11 north-western corner of the temple precincts, was also the palace of some high priests in various times located. Examples are the high priest Hilkiah and the high priest Joiadah, who in the time of the kings had a house in the temple, probably in the Chananel tower at the north-western corner of the temple precincts58. After Nehemia, and after Judas the Maccabean, also the Maccabean high priest Simon reinforces the Chananel tower to a fortress at the corner of the temple, and lives there.59 The historian Josephus says that Simon’s son, the Hasmonean high priest and ethnarch John Hyrcanus I, who started his reign in 135 BCE, reinforced the tower again and also lived there, and that his sons and their sons after them did the same: There was one of the [high] priests, named Hyrcanus; and as there were many of that name, he was the first of them; this man built a tower near the temple, and when he had so done, he generally dwelt in it, and had these vestments with him, because it was lawful for him alone to put them on, and he had them there reposited when he went down into the city, and took his ordinary garments; the same things were continued to be done by his sons, and by their sons after them. But when Herod came to be king, he rebuilt this tower, which was very conveniently situated, in a magnificent manner; and because he was a friend to Antonius, he called it by the name of Antonia; and as he found these vestments lying there, he retained them in the same place, as believing that, while he had them in his custody, the people would make no innovations against him. The like to what Herod did was done by his son Archelaus, who was made king after him. (Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18,4,3(91-93))60 After John Hyrcanus I, his son Aristobulus I was the first high priest ánd king of the Jews61, and as a son of Hyrcanus I he apparently lived in Antonia. Alexander Janneus, another son of Hyrcanus I, succeeded Aristobulus I as king and high priest. Then Hyrcanus II, son of Alexander and a grandson of Hyrcanus I, became the high priest. He was succeeded by another son of Alexander and grandson of Hyrcanus I, namely Aristobulus II, who was high priest and king again until the year 63 BCE, when the Romans took Judea. His brother Hyrcanus II then became high priest and ethnarch again. After him, from 40 to 37 BCE, a great-grandson of Hyrcanus I, Antigonus son of Aristobulus II, was high priest and king62. So, for a hundred years, from 135 until 37 BCE, the Hasmonean high priestkings all lived (“generally dwelt”) in Antonia. In 37 BCE the reign of king Herod started, who was not a Jew and lived in another palace in Jerusalem. He killed Antigonus and appointed high priests at will. Yet, these high priests may still have kept the hundred years old tradition of living in one of the palaces of Antonia63. The official high priest’s robe was still kept in it by the Romans any way, for only in 36 CE the governor of Syria, Lucius Vitellius, put an end to this hated custom.64 When Jesus was brought to Caiphas, in about 30 CE, this high priest must have had a palace in the fortress. This is shown from the movements of Simon Peter and Jesus in the night of Jesus’ arrest, as discussed in argumentation of this place my article John Mark – Author of the Gospel of John with Jesus’ mother (chapter 4), www.JesusKing.info. 57 According to Josephus Herod the Great made the fortress Antonia at the north west corner of the temple precincts, of which fortress the Romans later took possession and over which they appointed a fortress captain. [Jos., J.Ant. 15,11,4(403); 18,4,3(91-92)]. In the fortress Antonia three armies had their barracks in Jesus’ days: the temple guard, the city guard and a Roman guard (Jos., War of the Jews 5,5,8 (243-245)). 58 2Ki 22,3-5 2Ch 22,11-12 59 Jer 31,38 Zech 14,10 Neh 2,8 7,2 1Macc 4,60; Simon: 1Macc 13,52 60 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/works/files/ant-18.htm 61 Jos., J. Ant. 13,11,1(301) 62 Jos., J.Ant 13,8,1(230-235) 13,11,1(301-306) 13,12,1-2(320-329) 13,16,1-2(405-408) 14,1,2(4-7) 14,4,4-5(69-76) 14,10,2(190-195) 14,13,10(365-369) 63 “The inward parts had the largeness and form of a palace, it being parted into all kinds of rooms and other conveniences, such as courts, and places for bathing, and broad spaces for camps; insomuch that, by having all conveniences that cities wanted, it might seem to be composed of several cities, but by its magnificence it seemed a palace. … there always lay in this tower a Roman legion” (Jos., J. War 5,5,8) 64 F. Jos., J. Antiquities 18, 776 12 my article “The Eleven – Jesus appeared risen to the Officers of the Temple Prison”.65 After Caiphas, at least the high priest Jesus ben Gamaliel with his wife Marta seems to have lived there.66 The “Pavement, and in Hebrew, Gabbatha” (meaning ‘elevated’ or ‘a platform’; in Syriac and Persian translations it is ‘Gaphiphtha’, meaning ‘a fence’ or ‘enclosure’)67, where Jesus was led before the crowd, was probably the paved and fenced balcony (‘pterugion’ = winglet, a wing-shaped projection) of the tower Antonia, from where authorities spoke and could be heard by all the people in and outside the temple.68 This has also been discussed in my article “The Eleven”.69 So, Jesus appeared before the crowd on the official balcony. The robe Of the high priest In the fortress Antonia in the time of Pilate the high priest’s official purple robe70 was kept locked up by the Romans and was only given free the day before the three great liturgical feasts of the Jews and before their fast day, the Day of Atonement. This is attested by Flavius Josephus.71 In Jesus’ days the high priest’s official clothes only consisted of the purple robe (and perhaps a crown/turban), because “the oracle [the breastplate] … did not exist during the period of the Second Temple”.72 An example of a high priest putting on the official clothes is Jonathan, the Maccabean, at the Feast of Tabernacles73. The presence of the robe in this building and the giving free of the high priest’s robe on that particular “day of preparation” may have inspired the Roman soldiers to put a purple robe on ‘the pretender’ Jesus, now he was here. The thorny crown and staff of reed were the royal symbols for this ‘high priest-king’. Of succession In the Old Testament the robe was an important symbol to express succession. The prophet Elijah cast his mantle upon his successor Elisha.74 In even earlier times the young Joseph carried a beautiful mantle given to him by his father Jacob, and he, instead of all his brothers, would receive the blessing for the chosen son.75 The son that would succeed the high priest Aaron, had to wear his father’s purple robe for seven days.76 Eleazar, son and successor of Aaron, received his father’s robe just before Aaron died on the top of the mountain77. In the time of Jesus the installation of the high priest consisted only of the investiture with the official robe. The anointment of the new high priest didn’t exist any longer78. 65 www.JesusKing.info, chapter 4 Martha, daughter of Boethus, demanded that carpets should be laid before her feet when she wanted to visit the temple (D. Rops, Het dagelijks leven in Palestina ten tijde van Jezus (Utrecht, 1965). 191). The ‘temple’ here is the sanctuary at the centre of the temple precincts. 67 John 19,13; Strong’s 1042. 68 Raxis, who was the ‘father of the Jews’ in the times of the Maccabees, lived here and jumped from it and lived (2Macc 14,37-43). James the Just spoke with authority to the gathered people from the ‘pterugion’ and was thrown down from it by the high priests and lived (Eus., H.E. II,23,10-12); Jesus was placed on the ‘pterugion’ of the temple by the devil and was tempted to jump down, to see whether He would live (Matt 4,5-6 Luke 4,9-10 NA27); also Paul, when saved and lead away from the temple by the Romans, spoke to the people in the temple from a place up the stairs (Acts 21,40). See for more details my article The Eleven – Jesus appeared risen to the Officers of the Temple Prison, www.JesusKing.info, chapter 4. 69 The Eleven – Jesus appeared risen to the Officers of the Temple Prison, www.JesusKing.info, chapter 4 70 Exod 28,31; 1Macc 10,21 71 Jos., J. Antiq. 15,11,4(403); and 18,4,3(93-95) 72 S. Sarfrai, M. Stern, D. Flusser, W.C. van Unnik (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century (Assen/Amsterdam, 1976) 874 73 1Macc 10,21 74 1Ki 19,16.19 75 Gen 37,3 49,26 49,26 76 Exod 29,30 77 Nu 20,28 78 R. de Vaux, Hoe het oude Israel leefde (Les institutions de l’ancien testament) part 2 (Roermond, 1961) 300-301 66 13 The words A week before the Day of Atonement, when it was time to start the preparations of this most solemn day, which liturgy could only be performed by the high priest, the high priest was lead in procession from his house to the temple and at the moment when the high priest would leave his house, the elders outside announced to the people that the high priest was now leaving for the temple and they exhorted the people to give him honour. The words by which the elders did this probably were “Behold, the high priest” or something similar79, for in the Catholic Church, before the start of a pontifical solemnity, such as a priest’s ordination which could only be performed by the bishop, the bishop was lead from his room to the church, while the priests sang “Ecce sacerdos magnus” (Latin for “Behold, the high priest”).80 Jesus speaks After having been flagellated Jesus comes forth out of the high priest’s palace, on the official balcony, towards Pilate and the people, while He is dressed in the high priestly and royal purple, with thorny crown and staff. So, on this day of “the preparation of the passover”, He must have looked like the high priest to the Jews. And there and then, He who had called Himself “the Son of the Man” (‘ho uios tou anthrōpou’), speaks the words: “Behold the man!” (‘anthrōpos’).81 a) The verse reads: Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And [Pilate] saith unto them, Behold the man! (John 19,5 AV) In none of the manuscripts of the Gospel the word ‘Pilate’ is found in this verse. It is only found in some translations, such as the Authorized Version, where it is inserted. In this verse Jesus is the subject and not Pilate. If we compare this verse to the previous one – “Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.” (John 19,4 AV) – and if we look at the Greek text, we see both verses have the same structure: the verb ‘exēlthen’ (“came forth”) + the subject (‘Pilatos’ c.q. ‘Iēsous’) + ‘kai legei autois’ (“and said unto them”) + the word ‘ide’ respectively ‘idou’ (“behold”): Kai exēlthen palin exō ho Pilatos kai legei autois˙ ide agō humin auton exō hina gnōte hoti oudemian aitian euriskō en autō. exēlthen oun [ho] Iēsous exō forōn ton akanthinon stefanon kai to porfuroun imation. kai legei autois˙ idou ho anthrōpos. (John 19,4-5 NA27) It seems that the evangelist puts Pilate and Jesus on the same level of authority, with Jesus speaking on his own behalf, just as Pilate had done. And if we look at the next verses When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him … (‘legei autois ho Pilatos’). (John 19,6 NA27) we see that first the high priests and officers are the subject, and that then someone speaks again, and Pilate’s name is mentioned again, in order to indicate that it is not Jesus speaking (any longer). 79 H.G. Koekkoek, De Geheimen Van De Offers (Alphen aan de Rijn 1985) 181-182 Eucharistie en Geestelijk Leven 9 (Tegelen 1996) 309, in a description of the ordination of the blessed Karl Leisner in Dachau 81 ‘ho uios tou anthrōpou’ NA27 John 3,14 a.o.; John 19,5 NA27 80 14 b) The last thing Jesus had said to Pilate while still inside was: You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice. (John 18,37) After these words Pilate brings out Jesus, and when Jesus has come to the multitude every one can hear his voice indeed: with the words “Behold the man” Jesus bears witness to the truth that He is high priest-king. c) Another thing which indicates that it was Jesus who spoke, is the reaction of the high priests and officers. Jesus’ words “Behold the man”, spoken on that very balcony, at that very moment and in that very outfit, will have been interpreted by the crowds, and especially by the high priests among them, as words of installation: ‘Behold me, the high priest (and king)’, for the high priests and their servants immediately cry out for Jesus’ crucifixion, “because he has made himself the Son of God”, and “every one who makes himself a king sets himself against Caesar.”82 They say Jesus made Himself Son of God and king, because it was Jesus Himself who spoke the famous words and not Pilate. And the high priests had understood Jesus’ words “Behold the man” as also a high priest’s installation, for they used the expression ‘Son of God’ in shouting to Pilate (John 19,7), and the verse Heb 5,5, written by the high priest Caiphas, already showed that to be called a Son of God implied to be appointed high priest. In silence, it was only Caiphas who knew that Jesus had not appointed Himself, but had been appointed by God, as Jesus literally was the virgin born ‘Son of God’: So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, "Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee" (Heb 5,5). d) Also the reaction of Pilate indicates that it was Jesus who spoke to the crowd. Pilate, inside again, asks Jesus where He is from, but Jesus doesn’t answer him. Then Pilate says: You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you? (John 19,10-11) Pilate here explains to Jesus that it isn’t wise to speak to the crowd and high priests, and then not to Pilate any longer, because it is Pilate who has the power now and not the high priests. But Jesus answers him, “"You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above (‘anothen’); therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin"” (John 19,10-11). The expression “from above” can also be translated with “from the beginning”, “from the first”83: it were the high priests who had given their power over Jesus to Pilate in the first place. So the high priests had greater sin than Pilate, and that is why Jesus had spoken to them. e) And also Pilate seems to have interpreted Jesus’ words as words of installation, for, after Jesus had spoken the words of installation, and after the Jews had reminded Pilate that he was “Caesar’s friend”, Pilate decided to use his power over Jesus and his power as procurator and “Caesar’s friend”84 indeed and install Jesus as king of the Jews officially, in an official setting, of which the characteristics are explicitly listed by the evangelist85: 82 John 19,6-7.12; both a high priest and a king were called ‘son of God’: Heb 5,4-5 and Ps 2,6-7 cf. ‘anothen’ (NA27) in Luke 1,3 (NIV) and Acts 26,5 (AV) 84 John 19,12 85 John’s use of the verb ekaqisen is even ambiguous, for the verb has various meanings: it could mean that Pilate sat down on the judgement seat, but it could also mean that Pilate made Jesus sit down on this seat, or even that Pilate appointed Jesus king (c.f. Eph 1,20 1Co 6,4)). The Greek OnlineBible Lexicon (2523) has: kaqizw =1) to make to sit 83 15 When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Pavement, and in Hebrew, Gabbatha. Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about the sixth hour [= midday]. He said to the Jews, "Behold your King!" (John 19,14) Although the Jews then officially rejected Jesus as their king – “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19,15) – Pilate confirmed his and Jesus’ act of installation and gave Jesus the title “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews”. This was very to the resentment of the high priests, who reminded Pilate that it was only Jesus Himself, in the first place – and not the high priests –, who, by saying “Behold the man”, had said ‘I am King of the Jews’: And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written. (John 19,19-22 AV) Thus, Jesus had said what He had said, and really was the King of the Jews, for He was the Bethlehem-born legal son of Joseph, son of Jacob, and son of all the kings of the Jews: the “Son of David”. Similar high priest-kings A) The Hasmonean high priest-kings The first, easily recognizable, association of Jesus’ appearance and words is, as already described above, with the high priest-king before the liturgical solemnity (or on his day of installation) in the official high priest’s robe, and announced with the words: “Behold the high priest” when coming forth out of his house in the tower Antonia. B) “Behold the man whose name is the Branch” A second association, that could be made by Jews acquainted with Scripture, is the association with “the Branch” of the prophecy of Isaiah: Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Behold, the man (‘iysh’) whose name is the Branch: for he shall grow up in his [the high priest Joshua’s] place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. It is he who shall build the temple of the LORD, and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule upon his throne. And there shall be a priest by his throne (RSV)/ he shall be a priest on his throne (AV and NIV), and peaceful understanding shall be between them both." (Zech 6,(11).12-13 RSV) Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD […] And the angel said […] "Remove the filthy garments from him." And to him he said, "Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you, and I will clothe you with rich apparel." […] Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, […] behold, I will bring my servant the Branch. (Zech 3,1-5.8) The word for “man” here is the Hebrew word ‘iysh’, which besides “a man” also can mean “a human being”, just as the Greek word ‘anthrōpos’ in Jesus’ words “Behold the man”. “The Branch” is a successor of the high priest Joshua, who in Zechariah’s prophecy gets clothed by God “with down 1a) to set, appoint, to confer a kingdom on one, 2) intransitively 2a) to sit down 2b) to sit 2b1) to have fixed one’s abode 2b2) to sojourn, to settle, settle down. 16 rich apparel” (‘machalatsah’ = a ‘robe of state’86) and whose successor, the Branch, will sit as a priest “on his throne” – the high priest’s throne –, and will also bear “royal honor”.87 In the Hasmonean dynasty of eight high priests (135 – 37 BCE) all but one were also king/ethnarch of the Jews. This dynasty of high priest-kings was a partial fulfilment of the ultimate fulfilment of this messianic prophecy, about a high priest-king, who would build the temple. Jesus had said that He would raise up the temple, i.e., his body, in three days: Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." […] But he spoke of the temple of his body. (John 2,19) He would also sit on his throne in three different ways (see below, 1.5.e). Also in Jeremiah’s prophecy the Branch is a “man” (‘iysh’), and both king and high priest, and here he appears to be a descendant of David:88 In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring forth for David; and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. […] For thus says the LORD: David shall never lack a man (‘iysh’) to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man (‘iysh’) in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn cereal offerings, and to make sacrifices for ever. (Jer 33,15-18) Jesus was a descendant of king David, through his legal father Joseph, son of Jacob, son of Solomon, son of David (Matt 1,1-6.20). In a comment on the Hasmonean high priest-kings Epiphanius even wrote that the two tribes of Judah and Aaron had been “united”.89 C) “a Son of Man” A third association of Jesus’ appearance and words “Behold the man” is with Daniel’s “Son of Man”, who appears in heaven and receives the kingdom and the glory of the high priesthood. When the title “the Son of the Man”, which Jesus chose, means He was the successor/second priest, and when Jesus’ words “Behold the man” mean that now He is the high priest, this implies that He very well could have been, not only the successor, but also the son of the man Caiphas. “Behold the man” then could be interpreted as: ‘behold the man whose son I am’. 86 Strong’s 04254 When the high priest and the king is one and the same person, there is of course the best “peaceful understanding between them both”. 88 The 1599 Geneva Bible Footnotes, and John Gill’s Expositor, and the Revised Matthew Henry Commentary, and Matthew Poole’s Commentary, have interpreted this “Branch” as a descendant of David. 89 “(3) … Alexander, a ruler of priestly and kingly stock. (4) … Alexander was crowned (diadhma epeqeto) also, as one of the anointed priests and rulers (eij twn xristwn kai ‘hgoumenwn ‘uparxwn ). (5) For when the two tribes, the kingly and priestly, were united – I mean the tribe of Judah with Aaron and the whole tribe of Levi – kings also became priests, for nothing hinted at in holy scripture can be wrong.) (6) But then finally a gentile, King Herod, was crowned (diadhma epeqento), and not David’s descendants any more” (Panarion 29,3,3-6). Also in Panarion 51,22,21 he speaks of the “anointed rulers descended from Judah and Aaron”. 87 17 1.4. The Eucharist, the high priest’s cake-offering In this section it will be shown that the unleavened broken bread and the wine that Jesus offered at the Last Supper as the sacrifice of his Body and Blood, indicate that his death was a high priestly sacrifice. In the Old Covenant existed the daily high priestly offering of unleavened broken bread (called his ‘burnt offering’ and ‘the cake-offering’), which in the temple liturgy was part of the daily wholeoffering and was followed by the accessory drink offering of wine,90 and both offerings had to be offered by the high priest and his son-successor: "This is the offering which Aaron and his sons shall offer to the LORD on the day when he is anointed: a tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a regular (‘tamid’) cereal offering, half of it in the morning and half in the evening. It shall be made with oil on a griddle; you shall bring it well mixed, in baked pieces like a cereal offering, and offer it for a pleasing odor to the LORD. The priest from among Aaron’s sons, who is anointed to succeed him, shall offer it to the LORD as decreed for ever; the whole of it shall be burned. Every cereal offering of a priest shall be wholly burned; it shall not be eaten." (Lev 6,20-23, Strong’s) “Offeret autem […] sacerdos qui patri iure successerit” (Lev 6,21-22 Vulgate) ‘o iereuv o cristov ant autou ek twn uiwn autou poihsei’ (Lev 6,22 LXX) [...] hwhyl mlw( qx ht) h#(y wynbm wytxt xy#mh Nhkhw (Lev 6,22 Ben Asher Hebrew Text) The cake-offering consisted of twelve peaces of unleavened bread that were baked in the morning91 and broken in halves: After the priestly blessing the meat-offering was brought, and, as prescribed in the law, oil added to it. Having been salted, it was laid on the fire. Next the high-priest's daily meat-offering was presented, consisting of twelve cakes broken in halves— half-cakes being presented in the morning, and the other twelve in the evening. Finally, the appropriate drink-offering was poured out upon the foundation of the altar (perhaps there may be an allusion to this in Revelation 6:9, 10). (A. Edersheim, The Temple, chapter 8) When it was evening, he reclined at table with the twelve. … Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (Matt 26,20.26-28) (Revelation 6,9-10: When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne; they cried out with a loud voice, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?") Responsibility of the second priest In the morning session of the daily whole-offering the first twelve halves were offered, and in the evening session the last twelve halves. The quantity of flour that was used for the high priest’s personal offering – a tenth part of an ephah – was just as much as the quantity of flour used for the sin-offering of the poor, and they also were both offered without oil or incense92. It was the 90 M. Tamid 7,3-4 H.G. Koekkoek, De Geheimen Van De Offers (Alphen aan de Rijn 1985) 174. 92 one omer (= one tenth of an ephah); Lev 5,11-13; H.G. Koekkoek, De Geheimen Van De Offers (Alphen aan de Rijn 1985) 174. 91 18 responsibility of the second priest (originally the high priest’s son and successor, see tables 4 and 5) that the high priestly cake-offering and every other part of the daily whole-offering was brought93: he had the same responsibility as Eleazar, the prototype of the second priest and son-successor of Aaron. And Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest shall have charge of the oil for the light, the fragrant incense, the continual (‘tamid’) cereal offering, and the anointing oil, with the oversight of all the tabernacle and all that is in it, of the sanctuary and its vessels. (Nu 4,16, Strongs) Eleazar was in charge of “all the tabernacle”, but especially responsible for “the continual (‘tamid’) cereal offering”, which means, or at least includes, the daily high priestly cake-offering, and also the other elements of Nu 4,16 are especially the requisites for the most holy duties performed in the name of the high priest94. In the Court of the Priests a special room and a special officer was set aside for the preparation of his cake-offering. The casting of the lot of the priest that had to offer it that day in the high priest’s name, was also the second priest’s responsibility and the lot was cast in the Hall of Hewn Stones, the hall of the Great Sanhedrin, adjacent to the Court of the Priests.95 It was also the second priest’s duty to mark the end of the daily high priestly cake-offering and wine libation, and thus the end of the total morning whole-offering, by waving a scarf.96 On Sabbaths and feast days it was the high priest himself who offered his personal cake-offering, and he could do this on any other day if he wished.97 Anointed to succeed him The high priestly cake-offering had to be a continual offering, an offering that had to be brought every day. So, also the day after the official high priest had died, it had to be offered. Therefore one 93 S. Safrai a.o., The Jewish People in the First Century (Assen/Maastricht 1987) 875 The high priest had to lit the lamp (Exod 27,21) and to burn the incense (Exod 30,7-8); the oil of the lamp and the incense had to be burnt inside the holy place of the inner sanctuary, and the anointing oil was also used only for the anointing of the high priest and the son that would succeed him. 95 H.G. Koekkoek, De Geheimen Van De Offers, 172-174 96 S.Safrai, The Jewish People, 889 97 Lev 6,20-23; cf. Heb 7,27; “The priestly benediction was followed by the last parts of the ritual: the offering of the members of the sacrificed animal as a meal-offering, and the cake-offering as the sacrifice of the high priest; the wine libation on the altar marked the conclusion of the worship.” (S. Safrai a.o., The Jewish People in the First Century (Assen/Maastricht 1987) 889); “The high priest's privileged status is reflected in his position at the head of Temple hierarchy, and several traditions and customs relating to divine worship rendered his status unique. A daily cake-offering was sacrificed in the name of the high priest, together with the daily whole-offerings, while the prescribed rite for the Day of Atonement, the only day on which the high priest entered the holy of holies to burn incense, was valid only when offered by the high priest himself. […] The cake-offering was part of the daily whole-offering and responsibility for this rite was distributed by lot along with the other rites of this. This meal-offering was the 'individual offering' of the high priest; a special officer and a special chamber were set aside for it (T.Shekalim 2:14; M.Tamid 1:3). The high priest had not to follow the divisional distribution of the ritual duties: he was permitted to sacrifice the daily whole-offering or to burn incense at will. But, either because of the infringement of the rights of the priests, or because he was occupied with communal and political matters, the high priest did not serve on a daily basis. His estrangement from daily Temple worship should not, however, be exaggerated, for both talmudic tradition and Josephus note that the high priest customarily participated in the worship on sabbaths and festivals (P.T. Hagigah II, 78b; Jos. War V, 230). [ ..] In the communal gathering once in seven years on the Feast of Tabernacles for the reading of the Torah, it was the high priest who read to the people.” (S. Safrai, Jewish People, 874-875); “Hierna werd het spijsoffer, dat bij het offer van het schaapje behoorde, naar het altaar gebracht. Vervolgens bracht de hogepriester zelf zijn spijsoffer op het altaar. Daarna werd hem de wijn van het drankoffer overhandigd, zodat hij zelf de wijn van het bijbehorende drankoffer kon plengen. Nadat ook de hogepriester zijn offer had gebracht, zwaaide zijn assistent met vlaggen.” (H.G. Koekkoek, De Geheimen Van De Offers (Alphen aan de Rijn 1985) 177, 178, see also 121, 126, 174, 190). 94 19 of the sons of the high priest, the one that had been chosen to succeed his father, may have been anointed before the death of his father, in order to make it clear that this son was to succeed and was to continue the daily cake-offering right after his father’s death, even before his own investiture as official high priest. He would then already be the “anointed” one, required by the law to offer his own high priestly offering. In a similar way also the kings Saul, David, and Solomon, had already been anointed outside Jerusalem, prior to becoming king by entering the royal city and sitting down on the throne98. Also in the high priesthood the succeeding priest seems to have been anointed before becoming the high priest: examples are Eleazar and Itamar, sons of Aaron, who were anointed already when Aaron got anointed99. Also the priest Zadok at first was only “the priest” next to the high priest Abiathar – note that Jesus says Abiathar was “the high priest” when Saul was king and David received the showbread:100 only after Solomon had become king, Abiathar was dismissed from the high priesthood (see table 3). So, when Zadok took the anointing oil from the tent and anointed Solomon king,101 he, as “the priest”, probably was already the second priest: more second priests have been called “the priest” (see table 5). So Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites and the Pelethites went down and had Solomon ride on King David’s mule and brought him to Gihon. There Zadok the priest took the horn of oil from the tent and anointed Solomon. (1Kings 1,38-39). This is confirmed by the fact that Zadok disposed of the anointing oil, which pertained to the responsibilities of the second priest, and by the fact that Zadok himself got anointed too, when he would become the high priest himself (1Ch 29,22 1Ki 2,35), instead of the dismissed Abiathar or his son. And they made Solomon the son of David king the second time, and anointed him unto the LORD to be the chief governor, and Zadok to be priest. (1Ch 29,22 AV) This anointing of the high priest and king before their investiture/installation would explain why there was no anointing of the next high priest in the days of Jesus. It were the Romans then who decided who was to be the next high priest, so it was no use anointing one of the high priest’s sons beforehand, for no son was ever sure of succeeding his father. The Romans appointed and dismissed the high priest at will, from different families, almost every year (see table 4). There may have been one or two periods in history during which the high priests were anointed priests. According to the rabbi’s the high priests were anointed until and including the time of king Josiah about the year 609 BCE102. Josiah was the last sovereign and orthodox king before the Babylonians started to rule Judah. This means Hilkiah was the last anointed high priest (see table 5). According to De Vaux however, the high priests were only anointed since the last part of the Persian period (about 398 BCE)103: to him the verse about the anointment of Solomon and Zadok, in about 971 BCE, seems a dubious verse, probably because he thinks it is improbable that Solomon was made “king the second time” and that Zadok was “the priest” – interpreted as ‘high priest’ – before he got anointed. And he also thinks that the “anointed ones” (Zech 4,14), in Hebrew: rhcyh-ynb = ‘sons of the oil’, i.e., the high priest Joshua and the governor Zerubbabel, in the beginning of the Persian period, both never were anointed because Zerubbabel never was. But, Solomon may have been made king for the second time when being “anointed unto the Lord to be 98 1Sa 10,1 16,3 1Ki 1,39.45-46 (Solomon anointed king at Gihon); 1Ch 29,22 (Solomon anointed again, now “unto the Lord to be chief governor” (as judge of religious matters (matters of the LORD)) 99 Num 3,3-4 100 Mark 2,26; 1Ki 2,26-27.35 101 1Ki 1,38-39 102 R. de Vaux, Hoe het oude Israel leefde ('Les institutions de l'ancien testament) (2 parts), (J.J. Romen en zonen, Roermond, 1961) part 2, p.300-301 103 R. de Vaux, Hoe het oude Israel leefde, part 2, 300-301; part 1, 189-190 20 chief governor (‘nagid’)”, if this second anointment gave king Solomon, like Daniel’s Son of Man, the extra authority of “dominion” (Dan 7,14), i.e., the power to execute judgement in “matters of the Lord”, beside the judgement in “the king’s matters”, which king Solomon already had (2Ch 19,11). And if Hilkiah was the last anointed priest in the time of king Josiah, both Hilkiah’s descendant Joshua (son of Jehozadak, son of Seraiah, grandson of Hilkiah), and the governor Zerubbabel (son of Sealtiel, a descendent of king Jechoniah, son of king Joiakim, son of king Josiah), were probably called ‘sons of the oil’ by the prophet Zachariah104 because they were successors and direct descendants of the last anointed high priest, respectively, of the last anointed king. In this view there is no problem in the fact that the governor Zerubbabel himself was not anointed (not being a sovereign king), and nevertheless literally was one of the ‘sons of the oil’. Whether the priest Joshua was actually anointed is unknown, but the fact that only permanently visible signs of the high priesthood are mentioned in Zechariah’s vision of Joshua’s installation (the “garments” and the “turban”, Zech 3,1-9), doesn’t mean that he never had been anointed. It may just not have been mentioned, because Joshua had already been anointed before the described investiture. So, it is possible that in both periods – the time until king Josiah of Judah, and the time since (at least the end of) the Persian period – the high priests have been anointed.105 Remembrance and meaning: Isaac and forgiveness of sins The high priest’s morning and evening cake-offering was offered for the forgiveness of the sins he had committed unknowingly in the last night and day106. It was part of the daily communal morning and evening whole-offerings, which were offered for the forgiveness of the unknowingly committed sins of the whole people107. Every morning and evening a lamb was offered with the appropriate flour and wine offering, and incense was burnt inside the sanctuary. These morning and evening whole-offerings on the temple mount (= Mount Moriah108) were remembrance-offerings of the ram that was offered by Abraham in stead of his only son Isaac on this very mount109. Abraham then had called the place “the LORD will provide”, because this was what Abraham had said to his son on the way to this mount, and this is what had actually happened exactly on this spot on the mount, when God provided a ram to offer instead of Isaac. Since that day, and even until Jesus’ days, the Israelites used the expression “the LORD will provide”110 in relation to offerings and to indicate the faith of Abraham – and in him of his people –, that God would provide for their every need, especially their need of forgiveness/atonement. Thus the communal offerings in the temple, at the same spot where Abraham and Isaac were, reminded the Israelites both of the ram offered by Abraham in stead of Isaac and of all the past and future things God would provide.111 The Eucharist So, in the institution of his Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is a daily sacrifice in the Roman Catholic Church, Jesus clearly used the image of the daily high priestly cake-offering: 104 Zech 4,14 At least one of these two groups of priests seems to have been anointed, for 2Macc 1,10 has the expression “the family of the anointed priests” (RAPC). 106 cf. Heb 7,26-27 107 Num 28,3-4 108 “Solomon began to build the house of the LORD at Jerusalem in mount Moriah” (2Ch 3,1) 109 Koekkoek 126-127; Gen 22,13-14; “He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."” (Gen 22,2) 110 “So Abraham called the name of that place The LORD will provide; as it is said to this day, "On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided."” (Gen 22,14); Paul in Php 4,18-19 uses the expression when speaking about an offering. 111 Thus, the morning offering was also a sign of gratefulness for the gift of the Law on the Sinai in the morning, and the evening offering expressed also the gratefulness for the gift of the Pascal lamb, slaughtered in the evening, and with it for the liberation from the slavery in Egypt (Exod 19,16; Exod 12,6; Koekkoek 127). 105 21 He used unleavened bread, He broke it to at least twelve pieces, for his twelve disciples112, He added the appropriate wine to the sacrifice, He ordered his apostles to keep doing this same ritual, He ordered them to “Do this in remembrance of me”113: like the daily whole-offering for the sins of the people was a remembrance, the Eucharist is also a daily remembrance-offering114, • He offered it “for the forgiveness of sins”,115 • Jesus was (delivered to Pilate to be) crucified at the third hour, the hour of the morning whole-offering with the high priestly cake-offering in the temple, and He died on the cross at the ninth hour, the hour of the evening whole-offering, with the second part of the high priestly cake-offering116. All of this seems to indicate that Jesus is (the son and successor of) the high priest. In fact, in the whole week before his passion Jesus had behaved as the high priest: • At the beginning of this week He was brought from Bethany to the temple in a festive procession (John 12,1.12-15.19), just as the high priest was brought in festive procession from his house to the temple a week before the Day of Atonement.117 • Jesus was in the temple every day of this week and spent the night on Mount Olive, probably in open air (‘aulizomai’ = “to pass the night (properly, in the open air)” Strong’s 835) (Luke l9,45.47 21,37), just as the high priest remained in the temple in the week before the Day of Atonement and didn’t sleep in his home in the city.118 • Jesus cleaned the temple-courts during this week119, a task belonging to the responsibility of the high priest, delegated to the second priest and his fellow officers of the temple. • Jesus wept over Jerusalem “this day” (Luke 19,41-42), just as the high priest was prescribed to weep at the Day of Atonement, when he was asked whether he would perform the atoning ritual of this day in the correct and valid way.120 • On the Day of Atonement the high priest got dressed in his official purple robe and Jesus got dressed in such a robe as well with thorny crown and staff (Mark 15,17 Matt 27,29).121 • • • • • Thus, in the Eucharist, Jesus Himself is the high priest. But He is also the sacrifice, for He said of the broken bread and wine: “this is my body” and “this is my blood” (Mt 16,26.28). Thus, in the Eucharist, which actualizes Jesus’ death on the cross, He is the sacrificed ram in stead of Isaac, in stead of us. His sacrifice of the cross is the fulfilment of the sacrifices of the Old Testament with the 112 Judas Iskariot left the Cenacle before the institution of the Holy Eucharist (Matt 26,21-26 John 13,21-30). So eleven apostles plus Jesus’ beloved disciple were present then. The thesis that not John, son of Zebedee, but John Mark is the beloved disciple is in my article John Mark – Author of the Gospel of John with Jesus’ mother, www.JesusKing.info. 113 Luke 22,19 114 According to the teaching of the Catholic Church the Holy Eucharist is not only a memorial offering but most of all an offering that actualizes the real presence of Jesus, both high priest and sacrifice: the bread and wine become Jesus’ body and blood. 115 Matt 26,28 116 Mark 15,25 Matt 27,46; H.G. Koekkoek 128-129 117 Ibid. 118 Ibid. 119 Matt 21,12-13 Mark 11,15-17 120 H.G. Koekkoek182-189 121 Ibid. 22 people of Israel,122 and is the new daily high priestly sacrifice of the “new covenant” with “many” “for the forgiveness of sins”,123 as Jesus said, and as explained by the author of Hebrews: For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself. (Heb 7,26-27) 1.5. An anointed one is cut off Jesus, the “Son of the Man”, chose not only the title of the successor/second priest, and not only behaved as the high priest in the week of his atoning passion, but He was also anointed on the head (Mark 14,1-3) prior to his high priestly atoning sacrifice of the Eucharist and of the cross. For this reason He may be regarded as Daniel’s “anointed one” who would be “cut off”. And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing. (Dan 9,26) It was now two days before the Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread. […] And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head. […] But Jesus said, "[…] She has done (‘ergazomai’) a beautiful thing to me. […] She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burying. And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her." (Mark 14,1-9) The “woman” knew Jesus would die by the hands of the high priests, as Jesus had already predicted a number of times,124 especially two days before the Passover (Matt 26,1-2), and she had a very precious, unused, box of ointment. She anointed Him, pouring the ointment on his head: this was the way a king or a high priest was anointed.125 The Greek Fathers hold that sinner who anointed Jesus’ feet in Galilee, and Mary of Bethany who anointed his feet in Bethany, and Mary Magdalene, are three different women; so, the “woman” here, in Bethany, could have been Mary Magdalene.126 She, as Jesus’ mother,127 once, after departing from Jerusalem and before fleeing to Egypt, possibly in the same public house in Bethany,128 had received a precious ointment as a gift for the newborn “king of the Jews” from the hands of the wise men from the East.129 Now she anointed her Son, on his definitive way back to Jerusalem, to be the king of the Jews indeed.130 Jesus’ words have been fulfilled, for, wherever his Gospel has been preached in the whole word, Mary’s Son is called the ‘Christ’, which means ‘anointed one’, and He really is the ‘anointed one’, not in the least because she “has done (‘ergazomai’) a beautiful thing” to Jesus. Jesus says that she “anointed my body beforehand for burying”. This means that both the woman and Jesus knew that his death was very near. And taking into account that Jesus could still escape 122 The Old Testament had a law as regards a “slayer” who had killed someone but not deliberately. Such a slayer was allowed to live in the city of his refuge, and he was only allowed to return to his own city and the land of his possession after the death of the high priest (Num 35,22-28 Jos 20,6). Likewise Jesus’ death was “a ransom for many”, even for “all” (Matt 20,28 1 Tim 2,6). See also Heb 8,6-13 12,24 for the new covenant. 123 Matt 5,17 26,28; Luke 22,20; John 11,51-52; Col 1,19-20; 1John 2,2; Heb 9,28 124 Mark 8,31 9,31 10,33-34 125 high priest’s anointment: Exod 29,5-7 Lev 8,12 Sirach 45,15; king’s anointment: 1Sam 16,12-14 126 Catholic Encyclopedia, at St. Mary Magdalen; The woman, who anointed Jesus’ head in Bethany (Mark 14,1-3 Matt 26,6-7), was not (necessarily) Lazarus’ sister Mary, who had anointed Jesus’ feet (John 11,2 12,1-3), nor the woman “sinner”, who had anointed Jesus’ feet in the Pharisee’s house in the city of Nain (Luke 7,11.37-38). The Greek Fathers are the 2nd to 5th century writers and teachers of the Church. 127 See my article Jesus and Moses – Mary Magdalene, www.JesusKing.info. 128 See my article From Bethlehem to Nazareth – And a memorial in Bethany, www.JesusKing.info. 129 Matt 2,2.11 130 Matt 21,9.15 26,63; Mark 14,61 15,32; Luke 23,2 23 this death131 but, as He said, “came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many”,132 and that Simon had predicted to Mary: “this Child is set … for a sign which shall be spoken against; Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also”,133 it is reasonable to assume that the royal and high priestly anointment “beforehand for burying” was for Jesus a sign of his mother’s consent to his sacrificial death and that He was to set off for the royal city (this would be a parallel of what happened in Cana: Jesus performed his first miracle – changing water into wine – only after his mother had shown Him her concern134). Instead of the silent departure of the wise men away from Herod, and the flight of “the young Child and his mother” to Egypt, now, from the same house, follow the silent departure of Judas Iscariot to the chief priests135 and the definite walk of Jesus and his mother to Jerusalem. From where they then had to flee, they are now purposefully heading for his passion: “there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother”.136 She, who had been Jesus’ co-operator in his “coming in the flesh” (2John 7), was also his co-operator in his “becoming obedient even unto death, and that the death of the cross” (Php 2,8).137 By making possible the redeeming sacrifice of her Son – by her fiat at the annuciation of Jesus’ Incarnation, and by her continual silence and submission to Joseph – and by consenting to the death of the only person, besides her husband, who could reveal her true identity, Mary in a way sacrificed both her Son and herself. Because of this doing “what she could” for our salvation and because of her immaculate soul, she maybe could be called the Co-redemptrix. The proclamation of this dogma would constitute another “memory of her” “in the whole world”. This then could be regarded as part of the “full reward” that she, the “Lady” (‘Kuria’ 2John 5), would “win” for what she had “worked for” (‘ergazomai’) together with the author of 2 John, “the elder” (‘presbvteros’) 138: Look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you (AV: we) have worked for, but may win a full reward. (2John 8) e) Jesus is Daniel’s “Son of Man” and “anointed one” who is cut off That Daniel’s anointed who is cut off on earth, is the same as Daniel’s Son of Man who receives the high priest-kingdom in heaven, is declared by Jesus Himself and by Simon Peter, when referring to Daniel’s spoken/written necessity/prophecy: 1. Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory? (Luke 24,26) 2. The Son of man goes as it is written of him (Matt 26,24) 3. Jesus Christ […] Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets (Acts 3,20-21 AV) ad 1) a) “the Christ (= anointed)” is Daniel’s “anointed one”, b) “the Christ … should suffer these things” and Daniel’s anointed one should be “cut off”, and 131 John 10,17-18 Matt 20,28 133 Luke 2,34-35 134 John 2,1-11 135 Mark 14,10 136 John 19,25 137 Both citations are from the 1884 Darby Version. 138 ‘worked for’ (‘ergazomai’) is both in Mark 14,6 (on the anointing woman) and in 2John 8 (NA27); 2John 1; further argumentation is in my article From Bethany to Nazareth – And a memorial in Bethany, chapter 8, www.JesusKing.info, and in one of my yet to be published articles. 132 24 c) “the Christ should” “enter into his glory”, but it is Daniel’s Son of Man (!), who enters heaven “with the clouds of heaven” and receives “glory”. ad 2) The Son of Man “goes as is written”, but it is Daniel’s anointed one of whom it is written that he will be “cut off”. ad 3) Christ is the one “whom the heaven must receive” but it is Daniel’s Son of Man, who would enter heaven “with the clouds of heaven” (Dan 7,13). (And for the Christ it will be like this “until the times of restitution of all things” and for Daniel’s “prince of the host” (= the Prince of princes = the Son of Man, see 1.2., table 7) it will be unto “two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state”.) The Son of man is an anointed priest So, Daniel’s Son of Man is an anointed one, and, since it has been shown above that Daniel’s Son of Man is a priest (see 1.2.a and b), he must be an anointed priest. This means that he is either a second priest, prior to his installation into the high priesthood, or a high priest. And as the anointed priest would first be cut off and then be installed and not the other way around – for “the Christ should suffer [ …] and enter into his glory” and “his dominion is an everlasting dominion”139 –, Daniel’s anointed priest, the Son of Man, must be a successor-second priest. Daniel’s prophecy about the cutting off of an anointed one seems to have been fulfilled for the first time when the high priest Jesus Onias III was killed and the daily sacrifice stopped and the temple was defiled.140 In the case of Jesus Christ, the anointed one that would be cut off, was like a successor-second priest, for his installation was rejected by the people, and He got killed, as attested above in 1.3. Conclusively, the fact that Daniel’s Son of Man is an anointed second priest who is “cut off”, again proves the thesis that Jesus was the ‘successor’ of Caiphas, and thus possibly also his son. The vision of Daniel, in which “one like a Son of Man” receives dominion and glory and kingdom from “the Ancient of Days”141, can be interpreted as an installation ceremony in heaven, presided by the father (the Ancient of Days), for the chosen son (the Son of Man). In this vision the Ancient of Days probably represents God the Father. But also on earth Jesus, after having been anointed, already had been subject to an installation ceremony, including an investiture, an inauguration, and an enthronisation, recorded on a charter142: after having been anointed on the head in Bethany, He entered the temple in a festive procession; after this He was dressed with the purple robe and the thorny crown and was given a staff of reed; thus looking like the high priest-king He was inaugurated by Himself and hailed with the words “crucify him”; after Pilate had also declared Him king of the Jews, in an official way, the crowd shouted “away with him”; Jesus was enthroned on Golgotha, on the cross, with the charter “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews” above his head. After his death and resurrection Jesus, the Son of Man, ascended into heaven before the eyes of the apostles, “and a cloud took him out of their sight”.143 Then, on the clouds of heaven, He came to the Ancient of Days and received “dominion, glory (=high priesthood) and kingdom”, for Jesus had said at the trial that after the trial He would sit down “on the right hand of Power”, where He has already been seen by some men on earth, such as the author of Hebrews, i.e., the high priest 139 Luke 24,26 Dan 7,13-14 Jospehus, Jewish Antiquities 15,3,1; 1Macc 1,54 2Macc 4,34-36 141 Dan 7,13-14 142 a “testimony” (‘eduwth’) 2 Ki 11,12 ; De Vaux thinks this testimony was a written document that said that this man was the lawful successor in God’s covenant with king David (R. de Vaux, Hoe het oude Israel leefde ('Les institutions de l'ancien testament) (2 parts), (J.J. Romen en zonen, Roermond, 1961) part 1 page 185). 143 Acts 1,9 140 25 Caiphas, and the deacon Stephen144. Eventually He will be seen by everyone “coming on the clouds of heaven”145, coming back to earth. And then “the Son of man shall sit down upon his throne of glory” (Darby translation),146 and not on his throne of “open shame”:147 He will finally sit on the throne of the high priest-king on earth. He will act as the King of kings and Lord of Lords, and will “repay every man for what he has done”.148 2. Joseph of Egypt The dream-explaining Joseph son of Jacob, of Egypt, appointed viceroy by Pharaoh, was the incognito brother of the hungry sons of Jacob, to whom he gave the life saving corn149. In this way the dream-obeying Joseph, son of Jacob, of Nazareth, appointed high priest by the Romans, was the incognito father of Jesus and “Son of David”, who co-operated with God’s plan to give his people the life saving bread of the Body and Blood of Christ. 3. Abraham and Isaac The high priest Joseph Caiphas spoke: You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish. (John 11,49-50) These words imply that Caiphas himself did know that Jesus should die for the people. This is confirmed by Simon Peter, who said: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken. (Acts 2,23) So, it is possible that Joseph Caiphas was the one, who, like Abraham, “by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God”, had to sacrifice and deliver his only Son, the Son of the promise, on the mount Moriah, the temple mount150. In the epistle to the Hebrews Caiphas wrote that By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. (Heb 11,17-19 AV) 144 Matt 26,64 and Acts 7,56; “We see Jesus … crowned with glory and honor” (Heb 2,9); for Caiphas as the author of Hebrews, see my article Paul’s Cephas is Caiphas – Author of 1Peter and Hebrews, www.JesusKing.info. 145 Matt 24,30-31 26,64 146 Matt 19,28 cf. 25,31-32 147 Heb 6,6: “they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.” 148 Matt 16,27-28 149 Gen 39-46 150 “He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."” Gen 22,2; “Solomon began to build the house of the LORD at Jerusalem in mount Moriah” 2Chr 3,1 26 And Joseph Caiphas too, like Abraham, offered up his Son “accounting that God [was] able to raise [him] up, even from the dead”; and he wrote, in Hebrews, that he actually received Jesus from the dead, not “in a figure” but in reality: “we see Jesus … crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death” (Heb 2,9). Thus the “open shame” (‘paradeigmatizo’ Matt 1,19 AV) of not being the Bethlehem-born Christ, from which Joseph of Nazareth intended to spare Jesus and Mary by divorcing the pregnant Mary quietly,151 but to which he eventually submitted Jesus (and Mary) by denying and convicting Him to death – for which he used again the unique word “open shame” (‘paradeigmatizo’ Heb 6,6 AV, only used in these two instances in Scripture) –, finally turned into glory and honor for Jesus. And the author of Hebrews also knew that the reproach which befell Moses, when his Hebrew brothers didn’t know he was a Hebrew himself, was similar to “the reproach of Christ”, and that Moses (as a pre-figuration of Jesus) accepted this reproach, counting on the “recompense of the reward” (Heb 11,26). When Jesus said in the trial “Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven” (Mt 26,64), He implicitly told Caiphas that He would rise from the dead and appear to him. Paul and Caiphas both held that not works of law but faith in God – e.g. the faith of Abraham and Joseph, in offering up their only son – justifies man. For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. […] For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due. And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. (Rom 3,28 -4,5) And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. […] By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son (Heb 11,6.17) And just as Caiphas believed Jesus, when He spoke of Himself as if already dead and about to rise (“Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power” Mt 25,64), and therefore immediately rent his clothes, just as a father was obliged to do the moment when he heard of the death of his son,152 so he also believed that he would get the reward of seeing Him risen, on the right hand of power. 4. Essene Nazareth: the name of the settlement of the Rechabite Essenes in Galilee (Rechabites being called Notzerim).153 That Joseph, son of Jacob, of Nazareth, was an Essene has been made probable in my article “With Child of the Holy Spirit – Joseph willing to give her in marriage to his heir”.154 151 See my article With Child of the Holy Spirit – Joseph willing to give her in marriage to his heir, www.JesusKing.info. 152 S. Safrai a.o., The Jewish People in the First Century (Assen/Maastricht 1987), 773-774 153 See my article The Eleven – Jesus appeared risen to the Officers of the Temple Prison, www.JesusKing.info. 27 Joseph fled to Egypt (Matt 2,14), and possibly lived at the Essene-like community of the Therapeutai (= healers) on the shores of Lake Mareotis.155 “They profess an art of medicine more excellent than that in general use in the cities” (Philo, De Vita Contemplativa 1,2). Qai’phun: Arabic Essene name, found in Qumran, for a ‘prognosticator’, a medical doctor; the origin of the name-title Caiphas, for the high priest Joseph.156 The so-called ‘House of Caiphas’ was traditionally located – and some specific remains have been found – in the upper city,157 in the Essene quarter of Jerusalem near the “Gate of the Essenes”, mentioned by Josephus (Jewish Wars 5,145) and also found archeologically.158 Of Joseph Caiphas no father or wife or sons or daughters are known.159 The epistle to the Hebrews seems to have been addressed to a group of priests, who had been in contact with Qumran.160 It’s author, and the author of 1Peter, has the same profile as, and probably was Joseph Caiphas after his becoming publicly Christian.161 The apocryphal so-called Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Savior says: 1, 1 The following accounts we found in the book of Joseph the high-priest, called, by some Caiphas: 2 He relates, that Jesus spake even when he was in the cradle, and said to his mother: 3 Mary, I am Jesus the Son of God, ….. (1Infancy 1,1-3)162 154 www.JesusKing.info http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/591173/Therapeutae; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutae 156 According to Allegro Kaiapha(s) is a Greek transliteration of the Arabic word qā’ifun, which means ‘investigator, prognosticator; physiognomist’ and is the participle of the Arabic verb qāfa, meaning ‘follow; examine, investigate’ (J.M. ALLEGRO, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth (1979, 2nd revised American edition: New York 1992) p. 212-13, 236-37). 157 In the upper city on the western hill of Jerusalem archaeologists found the so-called “house of Caiphas”, with a store-house, treasury, palace, court of justice, guardroom and cells, complete sets of weights and measures, used only by priests, and a huge stone door-lintel inscribed: 'This is Korban or offering'; “In the very centre of the courtroom is the mouth of the bottle-necked prison, into which the condemned prisoner could be lowered after trial” and also the other prisoners were in the gloom of the lower floor beneath the courtroom: “Descending to a third level there is a complete guardroom, all round the walls of which are still the staples for the prisoners’ chains. On one side is a small window opening on to the bottle-necked condemned cell. Below this window, …, is a block on which the guard stood to peer down into the gloom of the cell below him” (Brownrigg: 26). 158 B. Pixner, Jerusalem’s Essene Gateway, BAR May/June 1997, http://www.centuryone.org/essene.html; www.bibarch.com/ArchaeologicalSites/Pella.htm 159 If the ossuary inscription ‘Joseph ben Caipha’ is authentic, Caiphas’ high priestly title probably has been re-used for one of his successors and not necessarily for one of his sons (see my article Paul’s Cephas is Caiphas – Author of 1Peter and Hebrews, www.JesusKing.info). 160 C. SPICQ, L’ Épître aux Hébreux, Apollos, Jean-Baptiste, les Hellénistes et Qumran, Revue de Qumran 1, 1959, p. 365-90 161 See my article Paul’s Cephas is Caiphas – Author of 1Peter and Hebrews, www.JesusKing.info. 162 http://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha/new-testament-apocrypha/5/2.php and http://www.ecmarsh.com/crl/lost_books/1_infancy.htm 155 28 5. Discussion By the theses of this article the reality of the voluntary and religious character of the sacrifice of Jesus’ life gains in clearness. New theses about the last part of the earthly lives of the Blessed Virgin Mary and her husband Joseph are discussed in a next article. © A.A.M. van der Hoeven, June 15, 2011, The Netherlands. 29 Table 1. Daniel’s “saints” are priests the ‘Prince’ a) Dan 7,21.25 b) Dan 8,11-14 the Prince of the host the offerings to change the times and the law the place the “saints” the saints the continual burnt offering taken away from him his sanctuary the sanctuary and host trampled under foot the saints of the Most High a holy one another holy one the host with the continual burnt offering the sanctuary and host trampled under foot c) Dan 8,24-26 d) Dan 9,26-27 e) Dan 11,22.3132 the Prince of Princes (cf. Eleazar, second priest Num 3,32) an anointed one the prince of the covenant (cf. “the convenant of a perpetual priesthood” with Phinehas, second priest: Num 25,11-13) the people of the saints sacrifice and offering the continual burnt offering the sanctuary the temple and fortress Table 2. The Son of Man is a priest like the saints receive: receive: saints sholtan (= power) kingdom (Dan 7,27) + (Dan diyn (= judgment) 7,18.22.27) (Dan 7,22) a covenant with many the covenant priests: are priests (Ezra 8,24 1Macc 1,46) Son of Man sholtan (= power) (Dan 7,14) + “authority (= power) to execute judgment”) (John 5,27) kingdom receives “glory” (Dan 7,14) (Dan 7,14) Ö becomes high priest 30 Table 3. King’s Court king - melek Judge class of priests (affairs of the Lord) ?Joel, ?Abia (Samuel dies) Judge people ('nagid') (affairs of the King) Saul - nagid Abjatar ?Joel and Abia David - nagid David Zadok(1) ?Azariah(1)Azaraja(2) ? Salomo 'nagid' to Lord Salomo - nagid Salomo High priest ?Ahitub(0) Abjatar sonof Achim.(1) (?Azariah sonof Oded 2Ch 15:1) Amariah ?=nagid of the house of God (Amariah) Rechabeam king of Juda ?Zechariah(2) ?Zechariah(2) Zebadja nagid of the house of Juda Josafat nagid of Juda (?nagid of the house of Israel?) (Achab king of Israel) (queen Athalia) ?Joiadah(3) Joas Zechariah(1) ?Joas: kills Zechariah(1) ?Zechariah(2) good influence on Uzzia Jotam: 'shaphat' of the people 2Ki 15:5 (?Micha) Sons of David: 'rishon' and priests.; Ira Jairiet: priest ; Jechiel with 'ben'; Achitofel: 'ya'ats'; Chusai: 'reeh' Azariah(1) sonof Sad(1): 'sar'; Zabud sonof Nat.: king’s friend 'reeh'; 'nagid habbajit' / 'aser al habbajith' Seraiah/Seja, Sawsa, Semaja, Jonathan Elichoref and Achia sonof Sisa Abia 'rosh' 'mazkir' (of 'zakar') (chancellor) Amasia Uzzia (=Azariah) becomes a leper Josafat: 'zakar' Achisar 'aser al habbajit' Captain of the city 'sar iyr' (Joiadah(1), battle hero and nagid of Aaron and high priest 1Ch 11:2 12:27 27:5) (Benaja sonof Joiadah(1): over bodyguard) (afterwards) (Joiadah(?2) sonof Benaja: over bodyguard 1Ch27:34) Josafat: 'zakar' - captain of the army - captains/princes 'sar' - others Joab: army; Adoram: tribute (2Sa 8:15-18 20:23-26 1Ch 18:14-17 27:32-34) Benaja sonof Joiadah(1): army Adoniram: tribute; Azariah sonof Natan: over the officers (1Ki 4:1-6) Abia 'rosh' and 'nagid' amongst his brothers 2Ch 11:22 Abia Asa Joram Ahazia (Ahitub(2)MerajotZadok(2): absent) Joiadah(3) ?Zechariah(1) 'caphar' secretary against the (?man of God Semaja 1Ki 12:22) Amariah Saul Saul David 'son'- /friend- / servant- / confidant- / second –(hand-) - of the king (Arza at Tirza: 'aser al-habbajit' of Ela 1Ki 16:9) 'sar' of Josafat: Ben-chail, Obadja, Zechariah, Netanel, Michaja 'councellors' of Achab 2Ch 22:4 ('mejuddaim' = acquaintances and 'kohen'=priests of the house of Achab ) Joas king’s son 2Ki 11:4; servants Zabad and Jozabad 2Ki 12:21 =2Ch 24:25 'ya'ats' 2Ch 25:16 Jotam king’s son 2Ki 15:5 (Amon: 'sar iyr' 1Ki 22:26) (Obadja 'aser al habbajit' 1Ki 18:3) (Joas 'ben hammelek' = the “son of the king” 1Ki 22:26) (------------- 'gadol' -------------= government officials of the house of Achab 2Ki 10:11) secretary of the king secretary Jeiel 2Ch 26:11 -------------) Joiadah(3) over body guard, Guards, captains of 100; 2Ki 11:4 2Ch 23:1,8 Jotam: 'aser al habbajit' 2Ki 15:5 ?Chananja, one of the 'sar' of the king 2Ch26:11 'sar iyr'? ?Chananja, one of the 'sar' of the king 2Ch 26:11 over the army? Jotam 31 Azariah(?3) ???? Azariah(3) from house of Zadok Azariah(3) Nagid of the house of God Achaz ?Hizkia Hizkia idolatry idolatry Hilkiah (?Jigdaljahu ?Zephaniah, gandson Gedalja ?Jeremia) princes ('sar') and judges ('shaphat') Zep 3:3 Manasse Amon Josiah (three sons of the king) Joahaz (=Sallum) deported Egypt (?Azariah(4) (?Uria sonof Semaja(?1) ) (Jeremia) (?sonsof Chanan sonof Jigdaljahu) (?Chananja (?1)sonof Azzur; Semaja(?1) makes Zephaniah sonof Maaseiah to 2nd priest) Seraiah(1) killed Jer 52:24 (Jehozadak deported) ?Achikam sonof Safan Jer 26:24; ('sar') elders Jer 26:16,24 6:12,26 ?princes 'sar' Jer 37:14 38:5,25 Joach sonof Asaf 'zakar' 2Ki 18:18 secretary Safan 2Ki 22:12 Achikam sonof Safan 2Ki 22:12 Joach 'zakar' 2Ch 34:8 Elisama 'caphar' ??Achikam sof Safan Jer 26:24 the secretary Elders of the priests, servants 'ebed' 2Ki 19:2,5 idolatry idolatry Hilkiah Azrikam 'nagid habbajit' 2Ch 28:7 (gedood) Sebna: 'aser al habbajit' = 'soken' Jes 22:15 Eljakim sonof Hilkiah 'aser al habbajit' 2Ki 18:18; 'ebed' 19:5 Maaseiah king’s son, Elkana 'mishneh yad melek' (both killed) servants 2Ki 21:23 Asaja, servant of the king 'ebed' 2Ki 22:12; servants 'ebed' 2Ki 23:30 Sebna 'caphar' 2Ki 18:18 'ebed' 19:5 Maaseiah 'sar iyr' 2Ch 34:8 2Ki 23:8 (the gate of Jehosua) ?Akbor sonof Michaja = over the army? 2Ki 22:12 Maaseiah sonof Sallum ("keeper of the door") Jer 35:4 'sar': Gemarja sonof Safan; Delaja sonof Semaja(1), Sidkiahu sonof Chananja(1), Elnatan sonof Akbor Jer 36:25 ?Baruch sonof sonof Machseja All princes and powerful are deported. (?a.o. Malkia?) 2Ki 24:12-15 'sar'+'gibbor'+'saris+'ayil' to Joiakim (=Eljakim) sonof Josiah: appointed by Egypt, deported to Babel 2Ch 36:67 Jerachmeel 'ben hammelek' Jer 36:26 Jojakin (=Jechonja=Ko njahu) sonof Joiakim: Deported to Babel ?Malkia, 'ben hammelek'; servants 'ebed' and courtiers 'saris' 2Ki 24:12 Sedekia (=Mattanja, sonof Josiah 'Ebed-Melek' Jer 38:7 of ?Gedalja sonof Achikam? seal:' aser al habbajit'; pit of Malkia 'ben hammelek' Jer 38:6 (secretary of captain of the army Jer 52:25) ?Gedalja sonof Achikam Jer 39:14 chamber secretary Jonathan (servants 'ebed' Jer 37:2) ?Gedalja sonof Achik. ?Jehosua 'sar iyr' 2Ki 23:8 Sedekia deported. Jer 52:10 Gedalja sonof Achik. Over cities of Juda Neria Seraiah sonof Neria sonof Machseja 'sar menuchah' Jer 51:59 'sar': Sefatja sonof Mattan, Gedalja sonof Paschur, Jukal sonof Selemja(1/2), Paschur sonof Malkia All princes (sar) of Juda are killed Jer 52:10 captain of the army Jismael sonof Netanja, sonof Elisama, of royal descent, kills Gedalja sonof Achikam 32 Table 4. Responsibilities of the Second Priests High priest Aaron When h.pr. in function Until he dies Nu 20,28 Second priest 1. Eleazar, son of Aaron the Prince of princes Eleazar Until he dies Jos 24,33 Abiathar in the days of Abiathar the high priest Mark 2,26 Until he is sent away by Solomon 1Ki 2,26-27 Abiathar Seraiah 2 Ki 25,18 The Ancient of Days Dan 7,13-14 (God the Father is King of Kings and Lord of Lords) (1 Tim 6,15) Joiakim In the days of Joiakim Ne 12,12 Second priest is in charge of and has the disposal of: is “the prince of princes of the Levites, and to have oversight of those who had charge of the sanctuary” When Nu 3,32 Nu 4,16 is in “charge of the oil for the light, the fragrant incense, the continual cereal offering, and the anointing oil, with the oversight of all the tabernacle and all that is in it, of the sanctuary and its vessels” 2. Phinehas, son of Eleazar 3. Ahimelech In charge of the levites Disposes of the vessels of the sanctuary 1 Chr 9,20-27 Nu 31,6 Jos 24,33 Disposes of the shewbread 1 Sam 21,1.6.9 (Mark 2,26) (Gets killed by Saul 1 Sam 22,18) 4. Zadok Disposes of and anoints Solomon with the oil out of the tabernacle 1 Ki 1,39 5. Zephaniah “second priest” 6. A Oversight of the Priests’ Court and the Court of the Israelites 2 Ki 25,18 Anointed and appointed in the place of Abiathar 1 Ch 29,22 1 Ki 2,35 (Brought to the king of Babylon 2 Ki 25,18-20) Receives “glory” of high priesthood Dan 7,13-14 Son of Man Dan 8,25 (Jesus, the Lamb, will also be King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and will slay his enemies with the sword out of his mouth (Rev 17,14 19,16.21) ) Appointed over the chambers of the house of our God … a large chamber where they had previously put the cereal offering, the frankincense, the vessels … Ne 13,4-6 “the high priest” Ne 13,28 Presided over the daily whole-offering Safrai, Jewish People p. 875 (High priests are appointed by the Romans) 7. The Prince of princes will break his enemies “without hand” 8. Eliashib son of Joiakim (“the high priest” is also title of second priest in Ne 3,1) 1st century CE Second pr. becomes h.pr. Nu 20,28 9. Second in command to the h.pr. in temple worship 33 Table 5. Chronology of Second Priests Time Scripture verses High priest Desert Nu 20,28 Jud 20,28 1Sam 14,3 Judges 1Sam 7,1 Kings Saul Saul versus Mark 2,26 David 1Sam 22,20-22 30,7 David Solomon 1Chr 29,22 1Ki 2,35 4,1.4 1Ki 4,2 Rehoboam Abijam Asa Jehoshaphat 2Ch 19,11 Jehoram Ahaziah Athaliah Joash 2Ki 11,17-18 Amaziah 12,9-10 2Ch 23,16.18 24,11 High priest Second priest Eleazar sonof Aaron Aaron Ex 31,10 35,19 1Chr 6,3-4 “the priest” Nu 16,39 19,3.4; Nu Nu 20,28 3,32 4,16 16,37 Jos 21,1 1Chr 6,3 Eleazar Phinehas(1) sonof Eleazar Nu 31,6 Jos 24,33 “the priest” Jos 22,13.30.31.32; Nu 31,6 Phinehas(1) Eli 1Sam 1,9 2,25.27-28 Hophni or Phinehas(2) sonsof Eli 3,1-3 4,13-18 “priests” 1Sam 1,3; (from Ithamar sonof Aaron : 1Sam 4,3-4.11 14,3 1Chr 24,3.6 1Ki 2,27) (get killed) Elazar sonof Abinadab Uzzah or Ahio sonsof Abinadab (keeper of the ark) 2Sa 6,3-4 Ahitub(0) sonof Phinehas(2) Ahimelech(1) sonof Ahitub(0) 1Sam 22,9.20 14,3 “the priest” 1Sam 21,1.6.9; 1Sam 22,9.16.20 Abiathar sonof Ahimelech(1) 1Sam 23,6.9 2Sam 8,17 (gets killed) 15,24.29.35 17,15 19,11 20,25 1Ki 2,22 4,4 Uzza (dies) or Achio 1Chr 15,11 18,16 24,6 27,34 2Sam 6,1-4 1Ch 13,6-7 Zadok(1) sonof Ahitub(1) (from Eleazar) “the priests Zadok and Abiathar” 2Sa 15,(29).35 17,15 19,11 20,25 1Ki 4,4 (1Ch 15,11) “the priests” 2Sam 8,17 1Ch 18,16 (gets rejected 1Ki 2,26-27.35) “the priest” 2Sa 15,27 1Ki 1,39 1Ch 24,6; 163 2Sam 8,17 -- Eze 48,11 Zadok(1) (from Eleazar) ?Ahimaaz sonof Zadok(1) 1Ch 6,8 1Ch 6,8-9.50-53 2Sa 15,36 ?Azariah(1) sonof Ahimaaz 1Ch 6,9 ?Johanan sonof Azariah(1) Azariah(2) sonof Johanan 1Ch 6,9-10 (in Salomo’s temple 1Ch 6,10) 1Ch 6,10-11 Ezr 7,3 ?Amariah sonof Azariah(2) Amariah (?Ahitub(2) sonof Amariah absent) 1Ch 6,11 Ezr 7,3 1Ch 6,11-12 9,11 (Ahitub(2), Meraioth and Zadok(2)sonof Meraioth, sonof Ahitub(2) ) 1Ch 6,11-12 9,11 Ezr 7,2 Ne 11,11 all absent Jehoiada(3) (‘rosh’/head: Zechariah(1) sonof Jehoiada(3) 2Ki 10.4 11,4.9.15.18 2Ch 22,11 23,1.9.11.14 24,6) 2Ch 24,2-3.14-15.20.22 Relation of second priest to high priest son son son brother son father ------------(other priest's branch) (son) (father) (son) (father) (son) son 163 2Sa 8,17 15,24.25.27.29.35.36 17,15 18,19.22.27 19,11 20,25 1Ki 1,8.26.32.34.38.39.44.45 2,35 4,2.4 1Ch 6,8.53 15,11 16,39 18,16 24,3.6.31 27,17 29,22 2Ch 27,1 31,10 Ne 3,4.29 10,21 Eze 40,46 43,19 44,15 48,11 34 Uzziah 2Ch 24,20 (=Azariah) Jotham 2Ch 26,5 Ahaz Hezekiah Manasseh Amon Josiah Jehoahaz (=Sallum) Jehoiakim (=Eljakim) Jehoiachin (=Jekonjah = Konjahu) Zedekiah (= Matanniah) ?Zechariah(1) ?Zechariah(2) ?Azariah(?3) ------“the (high) priest” 2Ch 26,17.20 ?(Me-)Shallum(1) sonof Zadok(2) ? son 1Ch 6,12-13 9,11 Ezr 7,2 Ne 11,11 2Ch 31,10.13 Azariah(3) "from house of Zadok" 2Ki 22,4 23,4 1Chr 6,13 2Ch 34,9 1Chr 6,13-14 Hilkiah sonof Shallum(1) Shallum(2) ------1Ch 9,11 2Ki 22,14 2Ch 35,8 "keeper of the garments" 2Ki 22,14 Ezr 7,1 Ne 11,11 Azariah(4) sonof Hilkiah ?Azariah(4) ------?Ezr 7,1 or ?Maaseiah (sonof Shallum(?1/2) Jer 35,4) 1Ch 6,14 2Ki 25,18 Jer 52,24 Seraiah (1) sonof Azariah(4) Zephaniah sonof Maaseiah ------?Ezr 7,1 Ne 11,11 ‘paqiyd’ of the high priest 2Ch 24,11 Jer 9,25-26 “second priest” 2Ki 25,18 Jer 52,24 “the priest” Jer 21,1 29,25.29 37,3; Zec 6,10.14 (Jozadak sonof Seraiah(1) exile) Zec 6,11 Ezr 3,8 10,18 Ne 12,26 Jeshua sonof Jozadak Josiah sonof Zephaniah Zec 6,10 Ezr 2,36 3,8 5,2 10,18 Ne 12,10.26 Hag 1,1-12 2,2.4 Zec 3,8 1Chr 6,14-15 Ne 12,1.7 Zec Ezra and Nehemiah 6,11 Cyrus Darius I Ahasuerus Xerxes Artaxerxes Ne 12,12 Darius II Ne 13,28 12,22 Ne 12,11 Darius III 1Macc 12,7Oniads Ptolemeus I 8.20 1Macc 13,36.42 Jedaiah sonof (Jeho)iarib (Ezr 10,18) sonof Jeshua Zec 6,10.14 1Ch 9,10 Ezr 2,36 Ne 11,10 Joiakim sonof Jeshua Eliashib sonof Joiakimsonof Jeshua "high priest" Ne 3,1.20 Ne 12,10.26 “the priest” Ne 13,4 Ezr 10,10 Ne 12,10 13,7 Ezr 10,6 Eliashib sonof Joiakim ?Joiada(5) sonof Eliashib Ne 12,10 Ne 12,10.22 13,28 or ?Ezra (sonof Seraiah(2)Ezr 7,1 Ne 11,11) “the priest” Ezr 10,9 Ezr 7,1 ?Joiada(5) ?Jonathan/Johanan sonof Joiada(5) Ne 12,10.11 ?Ne 12,10.22 Ezr 10,6 ?Jonatan/Johanan sonof ?Jaddua(1) sonof Jonathan/Johanan Joiada(5) Ne 12,10.11.22 Ne 12,10 Jaddua I Ne 12,10 Jaddua II or III (?Jehud Jehizkijahu coin inscription J.Ant.11,321-339 (?Jehud Jehizkijahu) "high priest" F.Jos.Contr.Ap.1,187vv) Onias I, sonof Jaddua II or III J.Ant.11,347 12,2,5 (?=J.Jehizkijahu.) Simon I, the Just, sonof Onias I J.Ant. 12,2,5 12,6,1 Eleazar, brother of Simon I and sonof Onias I J.Ant. 12,2,5.6 12,6,1 (grand-son) (son) (son) ("sonof" Hilkiah) (son) (son) (?son) 35 Ptolem. III Ptolem. IV Antiochus III Seleuces IV 2 Macc 3,1.45.10.21.3133.35 4,7 Antioch. IV 2Macc 4,7.10.13 2Macc 4,23-27 Maccabeans (Filippus(1) prefect of Jerusalem) 2Macc 14,3 Antioch. V (Lysias) Hegemonides Demetrius I (Nicanor) Demetrius I (2Macc 14,13) (Bacchides) Alexander- 1Macc 10,15Balas 21 14,7.30 Demetr. II 11,57 12,3-6 Antioch. VI (Tryfon) Manasses, brother of Onias I and son of Jaddua J.Ant 12,6,1 Onias II, sonof Simon I J.Ant.12,2,5 6,1.2.3.10 Simon II, sonof Onias II J.Ant.12,6,10.11 12,5,1 Onias III, sonof Simon II ?Jason, sonof Simon II, (brother) brother of Onias III 2Macc 4,1.4.6.7-10 J.Ant.12,6,10 12,5,1 (gets killed 2Macc 4,33-38 ) Jason sonof Simon II 2Macc 4,19.22-24 (26. 5,5-6) (=Jesus J.Ant.12,5,1(239)) (Onias IV sonof Onias III, built temple in Leontopolis J.Ant.12,5,1(239) 12,9,7(387)) 13,3,1-4(62ff) J.Wars 1,33 7,423) Menelaus Lysimachus brother of Menelaus (=Onias younger sonof Simon 2Macc 4,29.39-43 II J.Ant 12,5,1(239) 15,3,1(634)) (from Bilga/Benjamin 2Macc (gets killed) 3,4 4,23) 1Macc 1,54 2Macc 4,29.32.34. 39.43.45.47.50 5,5.15.23 11,32 Alcimus (from Aaron) "high priest" 2Macc 14,3 absence of Menelaus ?Alcimus deputy high priest gets expelled brother ------- (second priest acts as the high priest) Judas the Maccabean (from Jojarib) ------1Macc 4,59 5,16-20 2Macc 5,27 (second priest acts as the high (Judas into all the coasts of Judea priest) 1Macc 7,23-47) (Menelaus gets killed 2Macc 13,3-7 J.Ant.12,9,7) ?Judas deputy high priest (Alcimus, high priest appointed by Ant.V (J.Ant.12,9,7(385)) and by Dem. I with Nicanor 1Macc 7,5.20-25 2Macc 14,313, but is kept out 1Macc 7,25 2Macc 14,19-26) ?Judas high priest "high priest" 1Macc 8,1.20 2Macc 14,19-25 [FJ, J.Ant.12,10,6(416)] (gets killed 1Macc 9,18-23) ?Alcimus high priest ?a "godless" prominent 1Macc 9,23-27 1Macc 9,23-27 (pulls down the inner walls (godless are killed/driven out) of the temple; dies ?Jonathan the Maccabean 1Macc 9,54-57) 1Macc 9,31(9,33.40.44.47.48.73) (seven years no high priest) (second ?Jonathan deputy high priest priest acts as 1Macc 10,10 the high priest) Jonathan ? 1Macc 11,27-57 13,15 J.Ant.13,2,2 7,2.3 (gets killed 1Macc 13,22-30) 36 Demetr. II 1Macc 12.20 Antioch.VII 13,36.42 14,7.17.20.23.2 7.30,35,41 15,1.2.17.21.24 16,12.24 2Macc 13,42 1Macc Hasmoneans 16,23.24 135 BCE 2 Macc 3,11(?) 104-103 103-76 76-67 67 67-63 Romans 63-40 40-37 Simon III, the Maccabean ?Mattatias or Judas, "the great high priest" 13,42, sonsof Simon III the high priest? "for ever high priest" 1Macc 2,3.65 13,36-52 (get killed 16,16) 14,41-49 J.Ant. 15,6,7 7,2 (gets killed 1Macc 16,16) Johannes Hyrcanus(1), sonof Simon(3) the Maccabean (1Macc 13,53-16,23) J.Ant.13,8,1 9,1.3 10,3.7 11,1 12,1 Aristobulus(1) = Judas, sonof Hyrcanus(1) J.Ant.13,11,1 12,1 Alexander Jannaeus, sonof Hyrcanus(1) J.Ant.13,12,1.2 (son) (queen Alexandra, wife of Alexander) Hyrcanus(2), sonof Alexander ?Aristobulus(2), sonof Alexander J.Ant.13,16,1.2 14,1,2 Aristobulus(2), sonof Alexander J.Ant.13,16,1.5 14,6,1 Hyrcanus(2), sonof Alexander ?Aristobulus(2), sonof Alexander (2nd time) J.Ant.14,4,4 14,13,10 Antigonus, sonof Aristobulus(2) (gets killed by Herod) J.Ant.14,13,3.10 15,1.2 (brother) (?brother) 37 Table "Second Priests" © A.A.M. van der Hoeven, The Netherlands, 2004 Time: Romans Herod I (king) Archeleus (ethnarch) Cyrenius (president) Valerius Gratus start (CE) 37 BCE High priest Ananel 35 Aristobulus(3) = Jonathan, grandson of Hyrc.II and brother of Mariamme 34 Ananel Jesus of Phabet 25 Simon s.o. Boethus 5 Mattias(1),s.o. Theophilus 4 Joazar s.o. Boethus 4 Eleazar s.o. Boethus 3 Jesus s.o. Sias = Joshua ben See 3 Joazar s.o. Boethus (2nd time) 6 CE Ananus I = Annas ben Sethi J.Ant. Agrippa I (king) Herod of Chalcis 15,3,3 15,9,3 15,9,3 17,4,2 17,6 4 17,13,1 17,13,1 Joseph of Ellemus 18,1,1 18,2,1 ?Jesus ben See (Jesus Chr. 12 years old) predecessor Ananus I ben Sethi = "the high priest Annas" Acts 4,6 Luke 3,2 John 18,13.24 predecessor 15 Ismael of Phabi 18,2,2 16 17 18 36 37 Eleazar s.o. Annas Simon of Camithus Joseph Caiphas (for 18 years) Jonathan, s.o. Annas Theophilus, s.o. Annas 18,2,2 18,2,2 18,2,2 18,4,3 18,5,3 41 42 43 Simon of Boethus, Cantharas Matthias, s.o. Annas Elioneus s.o. Citheus/ Cantheras (‘Hakkof’) Josephus of Cantos/ of Camydus Ananias(1), s.o. Nedebeus " (to Rome) " Ismael of Phabi 19,6,2 19,6,4 19,8,1 20,1,3 20,5,2 20,1,3 44 (ethnarch) Quadratus (president) 47 Felix (procurator) Agrippa II (king) (58) 59 second priest to high priest Second priest 15,2,4 15,3,1 (procurator) Pilate (procurator) Vitellius (president) 164 20,5,2 20,8,8 J.Ant. 17,6,4 (?father or brother) father father-in-law father Jonathan, s.o. Annas ("the high priest" [J.Ant. 20,8,5 J.Wars 2,12,5.6 2,13,3]) predecessor brother (Jonathan refuses high priesthood J.Ant. 19,6,4) brother (to Rome) (gets killed [J.Ant. 20,8,5]) Ananias(1), s.o. Nedebeus ("the high priest" J.Ant. 20,9,2 J.War predecessor 2,17,6.9 Acts 25,2 AV) Festus (procurator) Albinus (president) Agrippa II (king) (60) 61 62 62 64? 65 (66) Josephus Cabi Ananus(2), s.o. Annas 20,8,11 20,9,1 Jesus s.o. Damneus 20,9,1 Jesus s.o. Gamaliel 20,9,4 = Joshua ben Gamala, Matthias(2) s.o. Theophilus 20,9,7 (gets killed) (?Joshua ben Gamala and Ananus(2) s.o. Annas ("eldest of the high priests" predecessors, temple is occupied [J.War 4,3,9 4,4,3])) 68 Phannias s.o. Samuel (“a mere rustic”) J.War 4,3,8 (get killed J.War 4,5,2) From second priest to high priest Second priests called “the (high) priest” From high priest to second priest 164 Oniads and Hasmonean high priests and kings from J.T. NELIS, De Makkabeeen I, Roermond 1972, p. 71 and table in F. Josephus, De Joodse Oorlog & Uit mijn leven, Baarn 1992, and table in R.L. HARRIS, Exploring the World of the Bible Lands, London 1995, p. 117. 38 The arguments why the high priests and second priests are sorted like this are in my personal study material which is not ready for publication yet. Conclusions that might be drawn from this table of the Roman period are: - A high priest, when dismissed from this position, often became the second priest (= the so-called sagan). - The second priest is the president of the Great Sanhedrin (abed-beth-din). - Three second priests are simply called “the high priest” and Jesus and Ananus are together considered 'the high priests': • Annas 1 (Luke 3,2 Acts 4,5-7,14 5,17-28 7,1 9,1-2) [maybe also “Ananus, the ancientest of the high priests” ? Jos., J. Wars 4,3,7 (151)] • Jonathan [Jos., J. Wars 2,12,5-6 (240.243) 2,13,3 (256)] [Jos., J. Ant., 20,8,5 (162)] • Ananias 1 (Acts 25,2 AV) [Jos., J. Wars 2,12,6 (243) 17,2.6.9 (409.429.442)], [Jos., J. Ant. 20,9,2 (205)] • “the best esteemed also of the high priests, Jesus, the son of Gamala and Ananus, the son of Ananus” [Jos., J. Wars 4,3,9 (160)] / “Jesus, the eldest of the high priests next to Ananus” [Jos., J. Wars 4,4,3(238)] • (Ananus / Annas 2 [Jos., J. Wars 2,20,3 (563) 4,3,9 (160)] Already in earlier times some second priests were called “the (high) priest” under the official high priest: • Eleazar “the priest” Nu 19,3-4 under Aaron (cf. Nu 20,28) • Ahimelek, “the priest” 1 Sa 21,1,6.9 and the father of the “high priest Abiathar” under Abiathar Mark 2,26 1 Sa 22,20 30,7 • Azariah(?3) “the high priest” 2 Chron 26,17.20, under Zekariah(2) 2 Chron 26,5 • Eliashib "(the house of) the high priest Eliashib" Neh 3,1.20, under Jeshua (Ezra 5,2 10,18-22 Neh 3,120 Neh 12,26 Hag 1,1.12 2,2.4 Zec 3,8 6,11) or Jojakim the son of Jeshua (Neh 3,1-20 Neh 12,26) • Alcimus “who had been high priest” 2 Macc 14,3, under Menelaus (2 Macc 4,23-29 3,4) • Judas the Maccabean “high priest” [Jos., J.Ant., 12,10,6 (416)] under Menelaus (2 Macc 4,23-29 3,4) [Jos., J. Ant. 12,10,6 (416)] - At least three of the listed second priests are called the biggest in reputation and influence: • Jonathan (and Ananias) [Jos., J. Wars 2,12,5-6 (240.243)], • Ananias [Jos,. J. Ant. (20,5,2 6,2 8,8) 20,9,2 (860)], • Jesus ben Gamala (and Ananus) [Jos., J. Wars 4,3,9 (160) 4,3,7 (151) 4,3,10 (162-164) 4,4,3 (238.251)] - An official high priest in function on the Day of Atonement is indicated with an extra definition: • "the high priest of that year", Caiphas (John 11,49.51) and • "the high priest"/"the high priest of God", Ananias (Acts 23,2.4.5) - In at least three cases the name of the second priest is mentioned prior to the name of the official high priest: • Zadok and Abiathar (2Sa 15,(29).35 17,15 19,11 20,25 1Ki 4,4 (1Ch 15,11)) • Annas and Caiphas (Luke 3,2 Acts 4,6) • Jonathan and Ananias [Jos., J. Wars 2,12,6 (243)] • Jesus ben Gamala (and Ananus) [Jos., J. Wars 4,3,9 (160), 4,4,3 (238)] 39 Table 6. Temple hierarchy Time High priest Second priest ('paqid') Desert Judges Kings Aaron Eleazar Eleazar Phinehas(1) (‘Keeper of Vestments’) Head man/ captain Captain citadel ('nagid-owtsar') ('paqid- nagid') ('sar habirah') (?Hofni or Phinehas(2) ) (?Uzza or Achio) (?Achia sonof Ahitub(0)) Sebuel sonof Gersom 'nagid' of the treasures (Levites) Jechiel the Gersonite (Jehozadak exile --- ?Achio Abinadab sonof (gate keepers) ?Ahimelech(2) sonof Abjatar (?Azariah(4) or) ?Maaseiah (sonof Sallum(?1/2)) Second priest Zephaniah sonof Maaseiah ------------------------- (out-station service) ('sar' to God from Eleaz. + Itam.) ?Joiada(1) .............................. .............absent ) Uria, "the priest" ?Zechariah(3) sonof Jeberekjahu ---------------------(?"the weighman / receiver") Joiadah(3) ? " ?Chananja - shuts the temple "the secretary" #Isa 33:18| Konanjahu (lev.) 'nagid' of levying etc. Sallum(2) ?Zekanja, 'nagid' of ?Jechiel, 'nagid' of "keeper of the the house of God the house of God garments/wardrobe" Immer, Paschur(1) "the priest" sonof Immer 'paqid''nagid' Seraiah(1) sonof Azariah(4) high priest Seraiah the the (? Ezechiel, "the priest") ?Azariah(4) sonof Hilkiah of (?Itamar) (?Phinehas) Phinehas(1) Eli (from Itamar Hofni or Pinech.(2) sonof Aaron) (killed) Elazar Uzza or Achio (keeper of the ark) Ahitub(0) Ahimelech(1) sonof Phinehas(2) sonof Ahitub(0) Abjatar sonof (killed) Ahimelech(1) ?Uzza sonof Abinadab (dies) (singers) (rejected) Zadok(1) sonof Ahitub(1) Zadok(1) ?Ahimaaz (from Eleazar) ?Azariah(1) ?Jochanan Azariah(2) ?Amariah Amariah sonof (?Ahitub(2) Azariah(2) absent) (............Ahitub(2), Merajot , Zadok(2) Joiadah(3) ?Zechariah(1) ?Zechariah(1) ... ?Zechariah(2) ?Azariah(?3) ?Azariah(?3) (?or absent?) (?absent) (------------------------ ---king Achaz -----Azariah(3) ?Sallum(1) "from the house of (grand)sonof Zadok" Zadok(2) Hilkiah sonof Sallum(1) Secretary/ treasurer ----------------------) "the writer /counter of the towers" Jehosua 'sar iyr' Maaseiah 'sar iyr' Maaseiah sonof Sallum(?1/2) "keeper of the door" (?Maasja sonof ?Baruch sonof Sallum(?1/2)) Neria sonof Machseja Joiadah(4), "the priest" Zephaniah sonof Maaseiah "the priest" keeper of the threshold 1 ?Jiria sonof Selemja(2) 'baal''paciduth' keeper of the threshold 2 Seraiah sonof Neria sonof Machseja 'sar-menuchah' keeper of the threshold 3 ----------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------) 40 Time High priest Second priest ('paqid') Ezra and Nehemia Jeshua (Jedaiah) (Jeshua or Joiakim) Joiakim sonof Jeshua Eliashib sonof Joiakim ?Joiadah(5) ?Jonathan (=Jochan.) Jaddua Secretary/ treasurer ('nagid-owtsar') (Immer) (?fam. of Uria, form class of Hakkos) (?Tobia?) (?Josiah sonof Zephaniah) Jedaiah sonof Meremot Jehoiarib sonof Uria sonof Jeshua "the priest" Massai/Amassai, sonof... sonof.... .... sonof Immer Eliashib (Meremot sonof sonof Joiakim Uria, sonof Hakkos helps building) "the high priest" Ne 3,1 ? Tobia "priest" ?Joiadah(5) ?or Ezra ?Jonathan ?Jaddua (?Jehud-Jehizkijahu "high priest" Head man/ captain ('paqid- nagid') (Paschur(1?)) Captain of the Tax collector citadel ('prostates ('sar habirah') tou hierou') (Charim) (?Cheldai?) (?Chelem?) (?Chen, sonof Zephaniah?) ?Elazar sonof Phinehas ?Jochanan sonof Eliashib Adaja sonof ... Jakin ... sonof Paschur(2) ?Zabdiel sonof Malkia Chananja 'sar habirah' (pr. Selemja, secr. (store-rooms of the Zadok, lev. gates) Pedaja, Chanan) fam. of Meremot Uria - Hakkos (?Jehud-Jehoezer) (?Jeh.-Jehoezer) (?Jeh.-Jehoez.) (?Jehud-Urija) Jos. Cont.Ap 1,187vv.) Oniads Onias I, sonof Jaddua ?=J.Jehizkijahu?) Simon I, the Just, sonof Onias I Eleazar, brother of Simon I Manasse, brother of Onias I ?Tobia Onias II, sonof Simon I Simon II, sonof Onias II Onias III, (=Jesus?) sonof Simon II Jason, (=Jesus?) Onias IV "the secretaries of the temple" [Jos. Ant 13,3] ?Jason, sonof Simon II family of Hakkos (?Johannes) ?Hyrcanus sonof Tobia Jozef sonof Tobia (242-198) Jozef, head tax collector of Celesyria ?Hyrcanus sonof Jozef sonof Tobia Simon of Bilga /Benjamin 'prostates tou hierou' ?Menelaus brother of Simon from Bilga/Benjamin 41 Time High priest Second priest ('paqid') Maccabeans Menelaus (from Bilga /Benjamin) Lysimachus brother of Menelaus and Simon (gets killed) Alkimus (from Aaron) "high priest" 2 Macc 14,3 Secretary/ treasurer ('nagid-owtsar') ?Lysimachus from Bilga/Benjamin Head man/ captain ('paqid- nagid') ?Auranus Captain of the Tax collector citadel ('prostates ('sar habirah') tou hierou') Sostratus tax collector and 'eparchos' of the 'akropolis’ Appolonius head tax collector builds 'Akra' (?Alkimus: deputy high priest, gets expelled) (Menelaus gets killed) ?Judas deputy high priest ?Judas high pr. (gets killed) ?Alkimus hp (pulls down the inner walls of the temple; dies) (seven years no hp) ?Jonathan deputy high pr. Jonathan high pr. Hasmoneans Judas the Maccabean "high priest" (Jos. Ant.12,10,6) Sion surrounded by Akra wall and towers, its occupied garrison Syrians ?Raxis residing in tower (with Judas) still by ?a "godless" prominent godless killed and expelled ?Jonathan the Makkabean ? repair of temple building of wall ?Lastenes of walls between Akra and Crete: city chancellor (gets killed) and/or head tax collector Simon ?Mattatias or Copy of charter Simon c.s. takes Akra "the great ?Judas, in treasury residence in the surrenders: high priest" sons of Simon at the disposal of fortress on the Jewish Simon and sons temple mount near garrison the castle Simon takes care of officers of (public) men to govern the men for weapon men to command Jerusalem and temple services (= temple land depots fortresses temple will be liturgy) (incl. archives in autonomous (gets killed) (death Matt. and temple treasury) Jud.) Johannes (temple-citadel Hyrcanus(1), dismantled by sonof Simon Antiochus VII?) Aristobulus(1) Alexander Jannaeus Hyrcanus(2) Aristobulus(2) ?Aristobulus(2) 42 Time High priest Romans Hyrcanus(2), Antigonus (gets killed by Herod) Ananel Aristobulus Ananel Jezus Phabetsson Simon b.Boethus Mattias(1), sonof Theofilus Joazar b.Boethus Eleazar b.Boeth. Jezus ben See Joazar b. Boethus Annas(1) ben Sethi Ismael Fabusson Eleazar sonof Annas Simon Kamithusson Caiphas (= Cephas) Jonathan sonof Annas Theofilus, sonof Annas Simon Kanthara Mattias b.Annas Elioneus b.Citheus Josephus Kaneusson Kanthara Ananias(1), sonof Nedebeus (to Rome) Ismael Fabeusson Josephus Kadi Ananus(2), Sonof Annas Jezus b.Damneus Jezus b.Gamaliel Matthias(2) sonof Theofilus Second priest ('paqid') Secretary/ treasurer ('nagid-owtsar') Head man/ captain ('paqid- nagid') Captain of the Tax collector citadel ('prostates ('sar habirah') tou hierou') Herod remakes temple-citadel to 'Antonia' ?Jezus ben See (Jesus Christ 12 years old) Annas "high priest" (+ the "Son of Man", Jesus Christ) ?Simon Iskariot / ?Simon the Zelot? ?Simon sonof Klopas ?James the Just (?"Guardian of "brother of the the citadel" Lord" [Jos.]) Jonathan sonof Annas “high priest” Ananus sonof Ananias(1) "headman" (to Rome) (to Rome) Claudius Lysias (gets killed) Ananias(1) “high priest” ?James the Just, leader of church; gets killed gets killed) ?Joshua b.Gamala and Ananus(2) “eldest of the high priests” ?Ananias(2), pharisee = 'sagan'? ?Eleazar b.Simon (Zelot) Eleazar sonof ?Eleaz. b.Simon Ananias(1) (Zelot) 43 Fig. 1. A sketch of the sanctuary of the temple (according to Edersheim’s description in “The Temple: Its Ministries and Services” chapter 2) 44 Fig. 2. Jerusalem in the days of Jesus (adapted from Rops: 107) (taken from my article “The Eleven – Jesus appeared risen to the Officers of the Temple Prison”, www.JesusKing.info) 45 Fig. 3. Antonia and the Watch Gate (taken from my article “The Eleven – Jesus appeared risen to the Officers of the Temple Prison”, www.JesusKing.info) Erratum June 2016 p. 23 “The Greek Fathers hold that the “woman” here, in Bethany, was Mary Magdalene.” was changed into: “The Greek Fathers hold that sinner who anointed Jesus’ feet in Galilee, and Mary of Bethany who anointed his feet in Bethany, and Mary Magdalene, are three different women; so, the “woman” here, in Bethany, could have been Mary Magdalene.” 46